troops.8276 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @Ashen.2907 said: > > @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. Maybe if we said a horse race then......no no no I'm only joking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @troops.8276 said: > > @Ashen.2907 said: > > > @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 $5 x 30 for 100% of the potential yield of the powerball jackpot. > > > > > > Sorry I still don't get it. If you buy %100 of the variables then ofc you'll get the reward. But that is 30 variables in the case of adoption tickets and 13,900,000 variables (or there abouts) in the case of a lottery, not just 30. Is that what your doing, pointing out the flawed logic and maths. > > > > I was pointing out the flaw in another poster's analogy. The mount system isnt comparable to playing powerball. The sheer difference in ability to achieve maximum possible yield alone shows this. The fact that one can, with the current mount system, buy the jackpot outright means that its not really gambling. It would be lime playing western rules stud poker against Bill Gates. He wouldnt be gambling since he could just buy every hand. > > Maybe if we said a horse race then......no no no I'm only joking. No horses in Tyria.. JK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliciamarianne.1725 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Yeah, it's completely reasonable to 'stand by the work our artists put into each skin' by making most of the community pissed by your marketing decision and making most of them not even try to enjoy these skins because they simply don't want to risk paying 120$ tu get the one they REALLY want. I have defended this game for years, standing by the choices made and the roads taken. I have played GW1 as well and have bought microtransaction items (and exchanged gems for gold) for aesteic reasons as well as to encourgae the work going into it. I have a GW2 TATTOO for Christ's sake. But for the first time in eleven years, I am dissapointed and angry enough to consider just not playing anymore. Is this how you treat loyalty? By making your custommers feel as though they are being cheated? There is no logic behind your decision to randomize the mount skins other than FORCING people to get MORE THAN THE ONE THEY ACTUALLY WANT. I find that insulting and outrageous. You can forget any single transaction from me in the future, that is if I even continue to play at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonsugar.4793 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 If this was an apology, Anet, it was a pretty lame one. I've been playing GW2 since launch and I used to brag about how fair and honest your company seemed but that's coming to a full stop now since I'm not going to get **suckered** into this scheme. Remember way back when you let us farm Black Lion Keys? Remember when we could start a guild for less than 1 gold? Those were happy times. You've changed Anet! You're not so cool anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menadena.7482 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @"Feena Canyon.4921" said: > So more 'set' packs are going to be released? I hope not. If you do not have all 5 mounts unlocked it is not as good a deal so you have to recalculate the numbers vs how good the other skins look. Oh, and no, I will not do the griffon quest just so I can use the griffon skins as at least one person in another thread seemed to suggest to non-griffon people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egrimm Van Horstmann.7921 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 It's good to see they won't repeat this with mount skins. For anyone wanting one of the skins in this set I would recommend save up and just do the thirty pack if that's **feasible**. You only pay 313 per skin or save 2400 gems total on the set. If you can't get that specific one, I would just let it go. There will be plenty of stuff in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eloc Freidon.5692 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 If anyone wants to see them change this and if the customers are dedicated to making sure they do that, don't make any more purchases on GW2 ever again. Don't buy anything new. Don't buy anything on sale. Don't even exchange currencies. If you want something done, vote with your wallet by freezing your gem use/purchases entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egrimm Van Horstmann.7921 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @"Eloc Freidon.5692" said: > If anyone wants to see them change this and if the customers are dedicated to making sure they do that, don't make any more purchases on GW2 ever again. Don't buy anything new. Don't buy anything on sale. Don't even exchange currencies. If you want something done, vote with your wallet by freezing your gem use/purchases entirely. You don't have to go that far. The weapon sets changed to one ticket after the backlash of the Abbadon set. Anet may not change the product they made could be coding, but they usually don't make the same mistake again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temragon.7395 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > Here are some of the benefits we had in mind when designing the Mount Adoption License: > > * You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price. > * It uses a progressive mechanic. Every license gives you a new skin to use and increases the odds of acquiring any remaining skins. > * You’ve requested variety, and this is a way to support variety. Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins. Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin. How about you just make good skins and sell them directly? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliciamarianne.1725 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @Temragon.7395 said: > > Here are some of the benefits we had in mind when designing the Mount Adoption License: > > > > * You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price. > > * It uses a progressive mechanic. Every license gives you a new skin to use and increases the odds of acquiring any remaining skins. > > * You’ve requested variety, and this is a way to support variety. Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins. Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin. > > How about you just make good skins and sell them directly? > > Thanks. I agree. None of those things seem advantageous to me, a consummer. They seem more advantageous to the company and when I see a company start to think in such a manner, I back off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Day.2594 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Someone on reddit translated this post really well from PR speak to normal: _"Hello, you have valid concerns about our ~~mistake ~~misstep and we will not be fixing it. There will be more bundles and pricey mount skins in the future and the RNG for the current 30 skins will remain the same. It's your support that has made this possible, thank you."_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hgkmaxymus.9321 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 One way to address this is to let people buy the skins they want from that loot box. You can create another box that costs 700gems (800 even, double the cost) and the person can pick whichever s/he desires. I would buy 2 or 4 boxes, maybe more when/if I have the money. Currently, I am not considering to buy any loot box since my RNG is a mess (Teq everyday since 2013, 2 Teq hoards). Yeah, getting skins from achievs would be nice, but not mandatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dashingsteel.3410 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Rng where you might get a skin you can't use(because you don't want to pay 300 gold for a griffon) just sucks....... They should have made the adoption cost 800 gems and you get to adopt the one you wanted. Anet would have made a ton of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ownedbycats.3580 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 To Mike and ArenaNet: Thank you for responding. I hate gambling (would love the new backpack/glider in the BL chests but I just hate RNG and RNG hates me lol), and I initially said that when this dropped I was too afraid to try RNG but then I looked at the skins more carefully. I found I liked a good share of them, enough that if they were sold individually for a higher gem amount (and that would have happened), I would have spent the same or almost the same as buying the 30 pack, so my husband bought them all for me. It was good value for me because then I got 30 skins for 320 gems each, the other way I would have got less skins for the same money - plus I have all the mounts unlocked so no problems for me in that area. But this is coming from someone who bought the base game in February of 2015 after the HOT announcement, pre-purchased HOT in June 2015, but got a refund I didn't want or even ask for when people were upset with the bundle price of base/HOT (I knew I would need to purchase the expansion after buying the base game, I was not one of the ones who complained. I could understand the issue with people who had just bought the base before HOT was up for pre-order - but I had several months of game play for free after that refund). I then took my $40 refund and I put it in the gem store so you would get it back anyway. I'm pretty easy to please I guess and I understand you are a business. However I do feel for those who only wanted a couple of these skins. For them it's not good value for money. It is also bad for people that do not have all the mounts unlocked, like say the Griffon. I think it would have been a good idea to at least allow people to pick the mount type they would be rolling for. That would probably be a good compromise on the situation. But I do understand the logistical nightmare of having to roll all this back for the people that bought them already. I personally would have no issue and not need a refund, but I know that not everyone is like me. You risk upsetting people no matter what here. Some people think the skins should be able to be sold on the trading post, which would not be so bad - but I wonder if the reason you made them account bound was so that people would not get duplicates? If you sell the skin you got, then when you open another license, the system can't see that mount in your account, so you would run the risk of getting duplicates. I could be wrong on that, maybe there is a way for the system to know anyway, but that seems to me like it could be the reason they are account bound. I don't know how people would feel about being able to trade them, but the downside is getting duplicates. I also think that you should allow people to buy the 30 pack for much longer than a week. Some people only get paid monthly or every two weeks, or need a few weeks/months to save up for it. I think that now that you know how the community feels about RNG, I'm sure you won't repeat this again. The BL chests that have items you can't buy directly and the general RNG in the game is bad enough really, it doesn't need to infect everything. I love having the gem store instead of a monthly sub. I know you guys need to earn money, that's why I like the gem store so much. Less is more on the RNG aspect as far as your gem store goes. Create beautiful items and let people give you their money for what they want, like I do! Thank you again for the response. *To the community: Please let's not be rude to others in the community. I have seen some really nasty comments about those who have bought the mounts and a few against those that haven't. Please, that solves nothing here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @Wildfang.3271 said: > > @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. I'm not making any assumption. I'm replying to someone else who was comparing GW2 "$25 mount skin" with WoW also selling "$25 mounts". My point was that GW2 doesn't have many mount skins, and the $25 one is the only one currently not locked behind a gamble box. Whereas in WoW you aren't as tempted to buy the $25 mounts because there are 400 in-game mounts you can choose to get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeivu.3615 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @moonsugar.4793 said: > If this was an apology, Anet, it was a pretty lame one. I've been playing GW2 since launch and I used to brag about how fair and honest your company seemed but that's coming to a full stop now since I'm not going to get **suckered** into this scheme. Remember way back when you let us farm Black Lion Keys? Remember when we could start a guild for less than 1 gold? Those were happy times. You've changed Anet! You're not so cool anymore. It is fair because you can't get doubles and everyone can unlock the basic mounts in game. The hardest part about griffon is the corrupted facet and earning gold. You can wiki everything else and be done in a few hours. And Black Lion keys are how they kept the game afloat. Exploiting chef and experience scrolls isn't exactly fair to them nor keeps the servers up if everyone can do it back to back. Once a week is more than a fair compromise for such a low level requirement. And in case you haven't noticed, gold isn't worth shit anymore. You get a stacking 2% increase every 30 days you log in. You need gold sinks, especially when gems are tied to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayumi Spender.1082 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Thinking on it, you have to kind of wonder if Arenanet planned this from the beginning? I'm not putting blame, but in my mind I'm seeing it like this scenario: A child wants a cookie. The parent plans to say no. The child already took a bite (whether little or big) out of the cookie. The parent looks at the child saying "It would spoil your lunch/dinner/breakfast/sacrifice of the first born" Kid looks at the cookie and goes, "But I already ate part of it..." The parent is now forced to go, "Alright alright. Finish it and don't take another one." The kid promises not to do it again but got away with eating the cookie. Once again not saying Arenanet did this on purpose, but in a way you have to think: Put it in the shop, whether knowing it would cause problems or not. People get mad. Arenanet already made sales on it and even more sales the longer they keep it up. People get even more angry. "Well it won't be fair to those that already made the purchase so we will leave it like this and just not do this again, okay?" Split between the people of being either mad, or "whatever, man. Whatever", or the parent that goes "Glad you know what you did, just don't do it again." Arenanet promise not to try this next time, but got away with it and still keeping the item up even after the situation. I have extra tinfoil hats if anyone wants one. Can use it for heavy armour as it's all shiny and looks metallic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick.1480 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 I Appreciate the response ANET and hope you go forward with the plan of having more individual mounts and mount packs. If there is anything you guys take from this is to not go with anymore RNG bundles with your game as the community would not appreciate it, and so that your artists will be fulfilled with any new skins they've made for the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmskCamill.6412 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @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. Please google what "analogy" and "principle" is before proceeding. In fact, the level of your miscomprehention of both the principle and the argument is beyond hilarious. Lottery is a **principle**, your arbitrary and incorrect analogy is irrelevant. Your desire or absence of desire to participate in a lottery with different prize pool/distribution has nothing to do with the fact that both a lottery and Mount Adoption License fall under definition of gambling. The fact that even if you lose you end up with **something** (piece of paper or undesired mount) does not change the fact that you still **lose**, and the whole scheme is there to make you spend more money that you were initially going to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nero DarkSlayer.9206 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Imma just respond to these in order and explain whey they're bullshit. "At a time when there’s a lot of debate about random boxes in gaming, we should have anticipated that a new system with a random element would cause alarm." --You're a business. You DID anticipate that there would be extreme backlash, but you did it anyways because lootboxes are making TOONNSSSS of money. "We released mount skins with three different purchase models, but with the majority of skins released so far through the Adoption License. It’s easy to perceive this as intentionally channeling you toward randomization." --Yes, yes it is easy to perceive it that way. Are you trying to say that WASN'T the intention? Because if it wasn't, I'd love to hear your excuse. "The Adoption License is a large set at 30 skins. We stand by the work our artists put into each skin, but it’s understandable to see this as pushing down the odds of acquiring any one skin, and to worry that we might add more skins to lower the chances further." --That's how lootboxes WORK, and your adoption license is a textbook lootbox. Again, if that wasn't the goal, what WAS? "You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price." --You're a business. You wouldn't sell anything for less than it's worth. Those mount skins aren't discounted because of the multiple boxes you have to buy to get the skin you want. Besides, you can't just put an arbitrary 25$ price tag on an item of equal value and use that as an excuse to claim that a similar item is "discounted." That's like selling lemonade at two different stands right next to each other, charging a 500% markup at the stand on the left, charging a 150% markup at the stand on the right, and advertising the right as "discounted." It's a disgusting tactic; basically a lie. "It uses a progressive mechanic. Every license gives you a new skin to use and increases the odds of acquiring any remaining skins." --lootboxes might be the latest trend in the AAA game industry, but that does NOT make them "progressive." Segregation was "progressive" immediately after slavery was abolished, but does that make it a good thing? Answer me that. "You’ve requested variety, and this is a way to support variety. Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins. Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin." --This is 100% bollocks. If there truly was no market for "plain" skins, you wouldn't bother making them in the first place. Plain people don't want flashy skins, and flashy people don't want plain skins. Forcing them to "accidentally" buy a skin they don't want is how lootboxes work. You have to buy 100 things you don't want to get one thing you do want, thereby making 100 sales you wouldn't have with a more honest, direct approach towards marketing. The price only appears to be lower because you have to pay it 20 times to get what you want, and lootboxes were NEVER stopping them catering player tastes up to now. "Microtransactions can be polarizing, and we’ve received both positive and negative feedback on the license. We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made, but I want to confirm to you that our next planned mount skin releases will focus on individual sales like the Reforged Warhound and bundles like the Spooky Mounts Pack. We will not add any skins to the currently available Adoption License, thus not pushing down the odds of acquiring any one skin in that set." --No, you've received major backlash from the community, but you want it to sound like a mixed reaction so you can look better addressing the feedback; like you're having a discussion rather than frantically trying to do damage control, which is really what's going on here. It's good to hear you won't add anything else to the lootboxes, and you won't release any more. Now all that remains to be seen is whether or not you'll stick to the outrageous 2000 gem price tag for a single skin. Mounts only have a handful of animations, and they're not as complex as a humanoid's animations. Your developers themselves have said (in some interview about the legendary armor skins) making armor for players is the most difficult thing for them due to clipping or something, and you've been selling outfits for an average of 800 gems. Mount skins almost undoubtedly cost less for you to produce, so a 2000 gem price tag is a bold-faced greedy cash grab if you ask me. With no skins unlockable in-game, we have no choice but to buy; You have us by the metaphorical balls on mount skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frostfang.5109 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @"The Sneak.2765" said: > Thank you so very much for a response! While I was hoping for a few changes, I realize now, that might actually hurt those that have already invested. If they let us who have bought licences already, swap any, already aquired, Mount skin ONCE for one of our choice, no harm will be done. Problem solved! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayumi Spender.1082 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @Frostfang.5109 said: > > @"The Sneak.2765" said: > > Thank you so very much for a response! While I was hoping for a few changes, I realize now, that might actually hurt those that have already invested. > > If they let us who have bought licences already, swap any, already aquired, Mount skin ONCE for one of our choice, no harm will be done. > > Problem solved! Shhh shhhhh you'll make them look bad. Accept the money you gave them so they look like they're 100% in the right. Shhhh. You're spoiling it for every.... for Arenanet. Shhhhh!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus.1549 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 I'm thankful for the update on the matter, although, you point out that you are proud of the work your ppl did for this pack of skins, but at the same time you are willing to keep it closed behind the rng walls? (sounds like pride takes the best of you guys atm). well ok have fun losing money with that. But i hope you will do better next time, although i highly doubt it cause not fixing the problem here and now shows dodgy attitude imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotASmurf.1725 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @Menadena.7482 said: > > @"Feena Canyon.4921" said: > > So more 'set' packs are going to be released? > > I hope not. New RNG mount schemes will definitely be released. It's very professional PR talk, he said the **NEXT** releases won't be RNG driven, aka the next 1-3 releases. He would've said "there won't be RNG boxes like this **in the future** " if he meant "never again". Then he also pointed out that new skins won't be added **to this one**, just this one. Exactly how we have mini pack 1, 2, 3 etc we'll have mount RNG pack 1, 2, 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kidel.2057 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 As I said some days ago, ANet usually does nothing when the userbase complains about something, even if it's a vast majority. I at least hope that they understand that they've lost money and, probably, players. I've stopped being active on GW2 since this shit happened and I'm now basically only getting log-in rewards until I change my mind. I still hope they at least put an option to DISABLE mount skins, since some completely ruin the experience. https://imgur.com/a/ycOJG Also > @"Mike O Brien.4613" said: > ... We stand by the work our artists put into each skin... And again: https://imgur.com/a/ycOJG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts