A Message About the Mount Adoption License

[Penarddun.6827]

> @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?

 

I don't see why we as a fan base can't just stop supporting business practices that we don't like. If one company goes under, it will replaced by another. Even something as big as EA. If EA went under, that big space would be filled by other companies. Popular licenses would be bought up. The "Art" is not going to die. As consumers we really do hold all the power. If we pay for good treatment, we'll get good treatment. If we pay for bad... well you know. That's why I've always been a supporter of subscription fees for games that continually get updated content. And I usually buy Ultimate Editions of games because I believe that games are worth a big chuck of money. They bring me a lot of entertainment. I have no issue spending $100 to buy a game and paying for expansions. That is sending the message of, "I value your game," not... "I am easily manipulated into spending money on items I don't want."

[Cavalier.4329]

WOW !!! To say I'm disappointed is an understatement. I'm almost on the verge of doing a credit card charge back on all my recent purchases and quit this game. At the very least split the skins out into their relative models. I don't have the Griphon mount nor to I plan on getting it... ever so why TF would I take a chance and pay to get a skin I'll never use ?????? At least split them out into their mount mounts so I can take a chance on say the raptor. I m ight not get the one I want but at least Ill get a skin for a mount I have. This is poor form Anet. You're going to lose customers over this. I'm probably one of them and I spend at least $50 every month in the store.......

[Lucciana.6809]

> We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made

 

I don't really understand this. ANetalready added NPCs (or at least options to them) for people to trade their townclothing for tonics. There should be no problem with adding a NPC where you could change you RNG skins **once** for the ones you really want!

I have to say I'm more disappointed in the way ANet handles the negative feedback than in the RNG nonsense itself. I hope you also read the feedback in this thread, because I think your excuse for .... basically not changing anything is poor. As I said you already added NPCs to trade specific gem store items or even get new things there if you bought specific items. (black /white wing gliders) So the devs could add an NPC to the game, where you can choose the skins you want. There should be no problem with that.

 

[Aelyn.7954]

> @Devildoc.6721 said:

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

 

Yes, but they sell real mount skins, not the "brand-new" things we are getting here. It's a damn joke to see basically the same raptor but with different horns or 4 dye channels being sold for 400 gems (and with a "substantial discount" at that, lmao). Unique mounts are fine, but there's like... 6-8 of them? Others are just a piss-poor excuse made solely to lure you into paying more money.

[hertigknut.8475]

"We read what you think but we still like to scam you" - Cheers anet.

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @Hecate.2891 said:

> Meanwhile, WP is deleting gifted mount adoption licenses LMAO

 

Huh?

[troops.8276]

> @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?

 

Very nice prose and I do mean that sincerely.

Art for the masses has all ways been a difficult thing to achieve. Who funds it? Who decides what has merit? It is so often censored in favour of the state or the social norms of the day, made illegal or simply never seen. Many great artists alive today started by giving it away for free. Though it was all labelled vandalism. To some its art and to others its not. Nothing new under the sun. Throughout history many great artists were burnt alive as heretics and even today in parts of the world this is still true. In this context though gw2 cannot be that thing we seek truly as it has to now have mass appeal by nature. MASSively multiplayer online. Maybe if one comes along that aims for a smaller audience in conception. So yes, abandon this game and seek another, smaller project. CU is where my backing has gone. Though that was long before now. GW2 was only ever a stop gap to some.

[Preyar.6783]

> @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> > @Hecate.2891 said:

> > Meanwhile, WP is deleting gifted mount adoption licenses LMAO

>

> Huh?

 

Out of context video where some people were gifting a streamer multiple licenses and at the end he outright didn't want to accept more, but they still did. Ofc these people want to take it out of context and show "Oh man he deleted it cause he's mad at Anet" which is an outright lie.

[Myrdreth.6829]

Stupid little question: who is WP? :sweat_smile: I didn't read the whole thread here, but some people always mention someone named WP?

[Lucciana.6809]

> @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> 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.

 

100% agree. Even with** just 1 - 4** I would buy about 12 adoption licenses in the gem store, but this way I'll buy none. My whole guild thinks this way. Some of them bought gem cards when they heard about the skins, but none of them bought the skins after they found out about the RNG aspect. We're saving our gems for winter's day now, but if we could choose the skins we would get, we would buy them now AND the winter's day stuff (if there will be something interesting). I guess there are many ppl who would buy the skins if they could choose.

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @Myrdreth.6829 said:

> Stupid little question: who is WP? :sweat_smile: I didn't read the whole thread here, but some people always mention someone named WP?

 

Wooden Potatoes. He's an internet game streamer that plays GW2. Essentially in his video about this he said he wasn't going to take sides with players but implied that nobody should be surprised because random loot for cash has always sucked and nobody put their foot down until now. It's about an hour long and a bit rambling but a good listen.

[fizzypetal.7936]

The bottom line is this...everyone has a choice about what they are willing to spend their time, in game gold or real money on. Don't like the RNG boxes? Don't buy them. Coming into the forums and continuing to post inflammatory statements is not going to persuade ArenaNet to do anything differently. I suspect the activity on the gemstore is going to be their guide as to what they do next. Insulting players who are absolutely fine with the RNG system or who can afford to buy the 30-pack set does nothing for the cause either. What individual players do with their time and money is not anyone else's concern but their own.

 

As I've said before, I'm not a fan of the RNG system because my luck stinks. I would LOVE to see the skins available as individual purchases at a cost in line with what we've seen on the gemstore before with outfits, armor and weapons skins. (Speaking of armor skins...really miss those, can they make a return cos I like to mix & match my outfits?)

 

Sorry, got distracted.

 

Constructive feedback is always welcome. Telling a company they are rip off merchants or enabling addictions is not. ArenaNet are trying something new. It may or may not work for them, only time and gemstore reports will show. I personally am not a fan because there are only a one or two skins I feel are a must have. It is by no means a deal breaker if I never have them. I would like to see options for ways in which skins are made available. I've stated previously what I'd like those options to be.

 

ArenaNet are more likely to take views into consideration if they are not laced with insults and accusations.

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @Lucciana.6809 said:

> > @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> > 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.

>

> 100% agree. Even with** just 1 - 4** I would buy about 12 adoption licenses in the gem store, but this way I'll buy none. My whole guild thinks this way. Some of them bought gem cards when they heard about the skins, but none of them bought the skins after they found out about the RNG aspect. We're saving our gems for winter's day now, but if we could choose the skins we would get, we would buy them now AND the winter's day stuff (if there will be something interesting). I guess there are many ppl who would buy the skins if they could choose.

 

Thanks. It actually took me a while to work that out to make it work so everyone should be happy including ANet.

[ArkofLeight.3746]

I'll throw in my two cents a little late and say I'm not spending any money on this set, but I would probably have shelled out IF it was random per mount. I know with my RNG luck I'd end up with all the skimmer skins before anything else...

[Myrdreth.6829]

> @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> > @Myrdreth.6829 said:

> > Stupid little question: who is WP? :sweat_smile: I didn't read the whole thread here, but some people always mention someone named WP?

>

> Wooden Potatoes. He's an internet game streamer that plays GW2. Essentially in his video about this he said he wasn't going to take sides with players but implied that nobody should be surprised because random loot for cash has always sucked and nobody put their foot down until now.

 

Thank you! I should watch his video then :)

[Feena Canyon.4921]

So more 'set' packs are going to be released?

[Ashen.2907]

> @OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:

> > @TexZero.7910 said:

> > > @zealex.9410 said:

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

> >

> > Because it's so much more work for them to re-use an already existing asset and charge 2k gems, versus creating entirely new entities for a glider and charging 500 ?

> >

> > Does pass the eye, or smell test.

> >

>

> You forget, that the player base was practically shouting at ANet, "We want Mount Skins, take our money! Even if its expensive, we'll buy it," prior to the release of skins. Its ironic, that now that they have been released and we find out that they are indeed expensive, we don't want to pay for them anymore... Producer sets the prices, it is our choice as consumers whether to pay them or not. And considering that ANet has been on a slow, but steady decline in sales since the release of GW2, its understandable that they are trying to make money through micro transactions, something has to keep the game running. No, I've never had a problem with the prices.

 

This.

 

 

[Ashen.2907]

> @OmskCamill.6412 said:

> > @Abelisk.4527 said:

> > I think that the license isn't as bad as people make it out to be. The difference between this and other RNG lootboxes from other MMOs is that there is a 100% chance of obtaining a unique mount skin, for a pretty cheap price, and best of all you do not need to pay IRL money, if you don't want to to obtain the skins. Other MMOs put in filler items, or bad items that nobody needs at all in lootboxes

>

> Like Black Lion Chests, yes, we know.

> Anet's target audience is people who don't like other MMOs to begin with.

> Anet overall is a fundamentally "good" company with business model that I like and support, and over the years they build their loyal and passionate audience with their benevolent business practices.

> The flipside of which is naturally negative and disproportional response to the attempts of being dicked. Many other companies' audience would be totally OK with that - part of people would shrug and open their purses, another part would shrug and move to another title, case closed.

>

>

> > The Reforged Warhound on the other hand is overpriced. 2k Gems in contrast to your typical 500 Gem glider? Nearly 4x the price compared to a glider.

>

> Warhound's main purpose is **not to be sold**, making direct sells is a side effect. Its core purpose is exactly to sit on display and be overpriced.

> It's the purest form of **[contrast principle](https://colejoshua.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/contrastprinciple/ "contrast principle")**. It's a form of exploitation of human cognitive bias that all shops in the world use, ever.

>

> By putting this one skin at 2000 gems price tag, Anet tried to make you compare their 400 gems lottery tickets against that 2000 gems skin, so that you think "wow! Those lottery tickets cost five times less than an actual mount skin! By Ogden's hammer, what savings!" Your perceived expenses go down significantly, because you compare the price to the next-in-line item.

>

> In reality, the real price of a skin formula is simple: 9600 gems divided by the amount of skins that you wanted **before ** purchase. So if you wanted one skin for each of your 5 mounts, you still spend 9600 gems for a bundle of 5 skins (and one skin costs 1920).

>

> > @SansSariph.9548 said:

>

> > Losing a gamble feels bad. Mike seems to argue that you never "lose" - you always get a brand new skin! We all know that getting a skimmer skin with slight model updates is not the same as getting a griffon with particle effects. The player hoping for the griffon is going to be sad when they get a more simple skin for a mount they use less often.

>

> Saying that you can't lose because worst case scenario you still get a skin that you don't want is like saying you can't lose in a lottery because worst case scenario you still got a scrap of paper. It's hypocricy.

>

>

 

I would happily buy 30 powerball tickets for a guaranteed multimillion dollar payout.

 

I dont think your analogy works.

[Wildfang.3271]

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> > @Wildfang.3271 said:

> > > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > > > @Devildoc.6721 said:

> > > > > @StaggerLee.6397 said:

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

> > > >

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

> > >

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

> >

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

> > A. Blizzard is altruistic?

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

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

> >

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

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

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

>

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

>

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

>

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

> 2000 gems: Reforged Warhound (single Jackal skin)

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

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

>

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

 

As said before, WoW uses a subscription model while GW2 doesn't. So it is heavily reliant on gemstore sales after the purchases of expansions. You are making a really big assumption that having numerous mount skins as in game rewards mean that people will definitely pay for gems to help support the game when in reality, most F2P games rely on a small group like about 10% of the playerbase that will pay. Of course, I could be wrong but then again, I am cynical when it comes to human nature. While I don't agree with ANET business decisions, they are making ones that are going to be more profitable to them which is to milk people like they did with gliders in the past where we didn't get any in game glider rewards until after a few months past HoT launch.

 

Well, personally speaking I find this new RNG system much better than the ones in BLCs. At least you will still get a skin albeit one that you may not want. On the other hand, you have totally no protection with BLCs and may just get crap for all your draws. I do sympathise with people that only wanted a certain few skins from the mount adoption license choices but I don't think there is much that can be done at this point as quite a lot of people have already paid for them. One can only hope they will put individual selected skins from it up on the gemstore at some point.

[troops.8276]

> @Ashen.2907 said:

> > @OmskCamill.6412 said:

> > > @Abelisk.4527 said:

> > > I think that the license isn't as bad as people make it out to be. The difference between this and other RNG lootboxes from other MMOs is that there is a 100% chance of obtaining a unique mount skin, for a pretty cheap price, and best of all you do not need to pay IRL money, if you don't want to to obtain the skins. Other MMOs put in filler items, or bad items that nobody needs at all in lootboxes

> >

> > Like Black Lion Chests, yes, we know.

> > Anet's target audience is people who don't like other MMOs to begin with.

> > Anet overall is a fundamentally "good" company with business model that I like and support, and over the years they build their loyal and passionate audience with their benevolent business practices.

> > The flipside of which is naturally negative and disproportional response to the attempts of being dicked. Many other companies' audience would be totally OK with that - part of people would shrug and open their purses, another part would shrug and move to another title, case closed.

> >

> >

> > > The Reforged Warhound on the other hand is overpriced. 2k Gems in contrast to your typical 500 Gem glider? Nearly 4x the price compared to a glider.

> >

> > Warhound's main purpose is **not to be sold**, making direct sells is a side effect. Its core purpose is exactly to sit on display and be overpriced.

> > It's the purest form of **[contrast principle](https://colejoshua.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/contrastprinciple/ "contrast principle")**. It's a form of exploitation of human cognitive bias that all shops in the world use, ever.

> >

> > By putting this one skin at 2000 gems price tag, Anet tried to make you compare their 400 gems lottery tickets against that 2000 gems skin, so that you think "wow! Those lottery tickets cost five times less than an actual mount skin! By Ogden's hammer, what savings!" Your perceived expenses go down significantly, because you compare the price to the next-in-line item.

> >

> > In reality, the real price of a skin formula is simple: 9600 gems divided by the amount of skins that you wanted **before ** purchase. So if you wanted one skin for each of your 5 mounts, you still spend 9600 gems for a bundle of 5 skins (and one skin costs 1920).

> >

> > > @SansSariph.9548 said:

> >

> > > Losing a gamble feels bad. Mike seems to argue that you never "lose" - you always get a brand new skin! We all know that getting a skimmer skin with slight model updates is not the same as getting a griffon with particle effects. The player hoping for the griffon is going to be sad when they get a more simple skin for a mount they use less often.

> >

> > Saying that you can't lose because worst case scenario you still get a skin that you don't want is like saying you can't lose in a lottery because worst case scenario you still got a scrap of paper. It's hypocricy.

> >

> >

>

> I would happily buy 30 powerball tickets for a guaranteed multimillion dollar payout.

>

> I dont think your analogy works.

 

 

Do you mean because it would actually be the equivalent of buying 0.00000001 adoption tickets and getting a guaranteed payout? (a skin you actually want).

 

Disclaimer: I'm not actually going to work out precisely how many zeros should come after the decimal point. That was just a made up number.

[GreyWolf.8670]

It would seem a lootbox would fall under a punchboard with hidden numbers in South Carolina at least and could be illegal.

 

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c019.php

[Ashen.2907]

> @troops.8276 said:

> > @Ashen.2907 said:

> > > @OmskCamill.6412 said:

> > > > @Abelisk.4527 said:

> > > > I think that the license isn't as bad as people make it out to be. The difference between this and other RNG lootboxes from other MMOs is that there is a 100% chance of obtaining a unique mount skin, for a pretty cheap price, and best of all you do not need to pay IRL money, if you don't want to to obtain the skins. Other MMOs put in filler items, or bad items that nobody needs at all in lootboxes

> > >

> > > Like Black Lion Chests, yes, we know.

> > > Anet's target audience is people who don't like other MMOs to begin with.

> > > Anet overall is a fundamentally "good" company with business model that I like and support, and over the years they build their loyal and passionate audience with their benevolent business practices.

> > > The flipside of which is naturally negative and disproportional response to the attempts of being dicked. Many other companies' audience would be totally OK with that - part of people would shrug and open their purses, another part would shrug and move to another title, case closed.

> > >

> > >

> > > > The Reforged Warhound on the other hand is overpriced. 2k Gems in contrast to your typical 500 Gem glider? Nearly 4x the price compared to a glider.

> > >

> > > Warhound's main purpose is **not to be sold**, making direct sells is a side effect. Its core purpose is exactly to sit on display and be overpriced.

> > > It's the purest form of **[contrast principle](https://colejoshua.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/contrastprinciple/ "contrast principle")**. It's a form of exploitation of human cognitive bias that all shops in the world use, ever.

> > >

> > > By putting this one skin at 2000 gems price tag, Anet tried to make you compare their 400 gems lottery tickets against that 2000 gems skin, so that you think "wow! Those lottery tickets cost five times less than an actual mount skin! By Ogden's hammer, what savings!" Your perceived expenses go down significantly, because you compare the price to the next-in-line item.

> > >

> > > In reality, the real price of a skin formula is simple: 9600 gems divided by the amount of skins that you wanted **before ** purchase. So if you wanted one skin for each of your 5 mounts, you still spend 9600 gems for a bundle of 5 skins (and one skin costs 1920).

> > >

> > > > @SansSariph.9548 said:

> > >

> > > > Losing a gamble feels bad. Mike seems to argue that you never "lose" - you always get a brand new skin! We all know that getting a skimmer skin with slight model updates is not the same as getting a griffon with particle effects. The player hoping for the griffon is going to be sad when they get a more simple skin for a mount they use less often.

> > >

> > > Saying that you can't lose because worst case scenario you still get a skin that you don't want is like saying you can't lose in a lottery because worst case scenario you still got a scrap of paper. It's hypocricy.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I would happily buy 30 powerball tickets for a guaranteed multimillion dollar payout.

> >

> > I dont think your analogy works.

>

>

> Do you mean because it would actually be the equivalent of buying 0.00000001 adoption tickets and getting a guaranteed payout? (a skin you actually want).

>

> Disclaimer: I'm not actually going to work out precisely how many zeros should come after the decimal point. That was just a made up number.

 

I mean because the person I quoted compared the current mount system to buying lottery tickets.

 

The current mount system means that for 30 payments you are guaranteed 100% of the potential yield. Id happily drop $5 x 30 for 100% of the potential yield of the powerball jackpot.

[Donari.5237]

> @Lucciana.6809 said:

> > We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made

>

> I don't really understand this. ANetalready added NPCs (or at least options to them) for people to trade their townclothing for tonics. There should be no problem with adding a NPC where you could change you RNG skins **once** for the ones you really want!

> I have to say I'm more disappointed in the way ANet handles the negative feedback than in the RNG nonsense itself. I hope you also read the feedback in this thread, because I think your excuse for .... basically not changing anything is poor. As I said you already added NPCs to trade specific gem store items or even get new things there if you bought specific items. (black /white wing gliders) So the devs could add an NPC to the game, where you can choose the skins you want. There should be no problem with that.

 

The difference there is in the term "items." Once something's in the Wardrobe it is fiendishly difficult to remove. As witness the long months it took for them to re-enable HoM after accidentally giving GWAMM (and its associated AP, I think) to anyone who made a new alt on a particular day. They did their best to do it without wrecking anything and to this day the bug sometimes surfaces where an HoM holder gets a mail telling them they've had their HoM stuff stripped.

 

The town clothes were inventory items that existed pre-Wardrobe. Once they were disabled, the NPC was able to verify that a character had said clothes and offer the tonic that went with them. I don't recall exactly on the wings, but I think that if you had them in Wardrobe that was enough to be handed a glider skin -- a new item that did not remove the old one.

 

So while I'd be pretty happy if I had the skins I got stripped and could then rechoose (and re-dye, arrgh, it's taking forever to get all my alts' mounts individually dyed to their tastes), I in no way imagine that it can ever happen. I came out ok on my random selection, true, so I'm a little less miffed about things than many, though I'd cheerfully dump Primal Hare for the Wind one as Tawny is my only regular dyeable skin in the Springer category and I still want Clouded Corvus. Still miffed, mind you, one reason I've drifted away from ESO play again is their rng loot crates and highly overpriced crown store items and it deeply saddened me to see anything resembling it in GW2.

 

It was more money than I likely should have spent. Even more than three years after retiring I still haven't internalized that I don't have steady income any longer. On the other hand once I started dyeing the mounts some of the skins that I didn't like turned out to be pretty awesome. Really, Primal Hare is the only one I have no use for other than occasional luls. (And I did get cosmic griffon and flaming jackal -- they can dye to look spectacular). I'm unlikely to buy any more of them, though, since odds are against my getting the Wind and Clouded ones I want and I'd weep if I got the Lop ...

[troops.8276]

> @Ashen.2907 said:

> > @troops.8276 said:

> > > @Ashen.2907 said:

> > > > @OmskCamill.6412 said:

> > > > > @Abelisk.4527 said:

> > > > > I think that the license isn't as bad as people make it out to be. The difference between this and other RNG lootboxes from other MMOs is that there is a 100% chance of obtaining a unique mount skin, for a pretty cheap price, and best of all you do not need to pay IRL money, if you don't want to to obtain the skins. Other MMOs put in filler items, or bad items that nobody needs at all in lootboxes

> > > >

> > > > Like Black Lion Chests, yes, we know.

> > > > Anet's target audience is people who don't like other MMOs to begin with.

> > > > Anet overall is a fundamentally "good" company with business model that I like and support, and over the years they build their loyal and passionate audience with their benevolent business practices.

> > > > The flipside of which is naturally negative and disproportional response to the attempts of being dicked. Many other companies' audience would be totally OK with that - part of people would shrug and open their purses, another part would shrug and move to another title, case closed.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > The Reforged Warhound on the other hand is overpriced. 2k Gems in contrast to your typical 500 Gem glider? Nearly 4x the price compared to a glider.

> > > >

> > > > Warhound's main purpose is **not to be sold**, making direct sells is a side effect. Its core purpose is exactly to sit on display and be overpriced.

> > > > It's the purest form of **[contrast principle](https://colejoshua.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/contrastprinciple/ "contrast principle")**. It's a form of exploitation of human cognitive bias that all shops in the world use, ever.

> > > >

> > > > By putting this one skin at 2000 gems price tag, Anet tried to make you compare their 400 gems lottery tickets against that 2000 gems skin, so that you think "wow! Those lottery tickets cost five times less than an actual mount skin! By Ogden's hammer, what savings!" Your perceived expenses go down significantly, because you compare the price to the next-in-line item.

> > > >

> > > > In reality, the real price of a skin formula is simple: 9600 gems divided by the amount of skins that you wanted **before ** purchase. So if you wanted one skin for each of your 5 mounts, you still spend 9600 gems for a bundle of 5 skins (and one skin costs 1920).

> > > >

> > > > > @SansSariph.9548 said:

> > > >

> > > > > Losing a gamble feels bad. Mike seems to argue that you never "lose" - you always get a brand new skin! We all know that getting a skimmer skin with slight model updates is not the same as getting a griffon with particle effects. The player hoping for the griffon is going to be sad when they get a more simple skin for a mount they use less often.

> > > >

> > > > Saying that you can't lose because worst case scenario you still get a skin that you don't want is like saying you can't lose in a lottery because worst case scenario you still got a scrap of paper. It's hypocricy.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > I would happily buy 30 powerball tickets for a guaranteed multimillion dollar payout.

> > >

> > > I dont think your analogy works.

> >

> >

> > Do you mean because it would actually be the equivalent of buying 0.00000001 adoption tickets and getting a guaranteed payout? (a skin you actually want).

> >

> > Disclaimer: I'm not actually going to work out precisely how many zeros should come after the decimal point. That was just a made up number.

>

> I mean because the person I quoted compared the current mount system to buying lottery tickets.

>

> The current mount system means that for 30 payments you are guaranteed 100% of the potential yield. Id happily drop $5 x 30 for 100% of the potential yield of the powerball jackpot.

 

Sorry I still don't get it. If you buy %100 of the variables then ofc you'll get the reward. But that is 30 variables in the case of adoption tickets and 13,900,000 variables (or there abouts) in the case of a lottery, not just 30. Is that what your doing, pointing out the flawed logic and maths.

[Ashen.2907]

> @troops.8276 said:

> > @Ashen.2907 said:

> > > @troops.8276 said:

> > > > @Ashen.2907 said:

> > > > > @OmskCamill.6412 said:

> > > > > > @Abelisk.4527 said:

> > > > > > I think that the license isn't as bad as people make it out to be. The difference between this and other RNG lootboxes from other MMOs is that there is a 100% chance of obtaining a unique mount skin, for a pretty cheap price, and best of all you do not need to pay IRL money, if you don't want to to obtain the skins. Other MMOs put in filler items, or bad items that nobody needs at all in lootboxes

> > > > >

> > > > > Like Black Lion Chests, yes, we know.

> > > > > Anet's target audience is people who don't like other MMOs to begin with.

> > > > > Anet overall is a fundamentally "good" company with business model that I like and support, and over the years they build their loyal and passionate audience with their benevolent business practices.

> > > > > The flipside of which is naturally negative and disproportional response to the attempts of being dicked. Many other companies' audience would be totally OK with that - part of people would shrug and open their purses, another part would shrug and move to another title, case closed.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > The Reforged Warhound on the other hand is overpriced. 2k Gems in contrast to your typical 500 Gem glider? Nearly 4x the price compared to a glider.

> > > > >

> > > > > Warhound's main purpose is **not to be sold**, making direct sells is a side effect. Its core purpose is exactly to sit on display and be overpriced.

> > > > > It's the purest form of **[contrast principle](https://colejoshua.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/contrastprinciple/ "contrast principle")**. It's a form of exploitation of human cognitive bias that all shops in the world use, ever.

> > > > >

> > > > > By putting this one skin at 2000 gems price tag, Anet tried to make you compare their 400 gems lottery tickets against that 2000 gems skin, so that you think "wow! Those lottery tickets cost five times less than an actual mount skin! By Ogden's hammer, what savings!" Your perceived expenses go down significantly, because you compare the price to the next-in-line item.

> > > > >

> > > > > In reality, the real price of a skin formula is simple: 9600 gems divided by the amount of skins that you wanted **before ** purchase. So if you wanted one skin for each of your 5 mounts, you still spend 9600 gems for a bundle of 5 skins (and one skin costs 1920).

> > > > >

> > > > > > @SansSariph.9548 said:

> > > > >

> > > > > > Losing a gamble feels bad. Mike seems to argue that you never "lose" - you always get a brand new skin! We all know that getting a skimmer skin with slight model updates is not the same as getting a griffon with particle effects. The player hoping for the griffon is going to be sad when they get a more simple skin for a mount they use less often.

> > > > >

> > > > > Saying that you can't lose because worst case scenario you still get a skin that you don't want is like saying you can't lose in a lottery because worst case scenario you still got a scrap of paper. It's hypocricy.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I would happily buy 30 powerball tickets for a guaranteed multimillion dollar payout.

> > > >

> > > > I dont think your analogy works.

> > >

> > >

> > > Do you mean because it would actually be the equivalent of buying 0.00000001 adoption tickets and getting a guaranteed payout? (a skin you actually want).

> > >

> > > Disclaimer: I'm not actually going to work out precisely how many zeros should come after the decimal point. That was just a made up number.

> >

> > I mean because the person I quoted compared the current mount system to buying lottery tickets.

> >

> > The current mount system means that for 30 payments you are guaranteed 100% of the potential yield. Id happily drop $5 x 30 for 100% of the potential yield of the powerball jackpot.

>

> Sorry I still don't get it. If you buy %100 of the variables then ofc you'll get the reward. But that is 30 variables in the case of adoption tickets and 13,900,000 variables (or there abouts) in the case of a lottery, not just 30. Is that what your doing, pointing out the flawed logic and maths.

 

I was pointing out the flaw in another poster's analogy. The mount system isnt comparable to playing powerball. The sheer difference in ability to achieve maximum possible yield alone shows this. The fact that one can, with the current mount system, buy the jackpot outright means that its not really gambling. It would be lime playing western rules stud poker against Bill Gates. He wouldnt be gambling since he could just buy every hand.