A Message About the Mount Adoption License

[Djinn.9245]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> Again, people need to **stop arguing that ANet needs to get paid.** Nobody is disputing that point. Nobody thinks that ANet should not get paid. That is not an argument on the table. The question is, **when** ANet gets paid, should it be in the form of direct "what you see is what you get" purchases, or in the form of blind box gambling?

 

As you say, this is the straw man that people feel they must use to get sympathy for Anet. Apparently these players feel that only way Anet can make money is to force players to keep throwing money at gamble boxes until they get what they actually want - thereby spending far more money on the single wanted item than they would have if Anet simply sold that item separately. And maybe Anet believes this also since they are the ones who introduced said gamble box.

 

Which doesn't say much for Anet's supposed support of their artists' work. The players who use this straw man must also not have much of an opinion of Anet's work if they feel this is the only way Anet can make money.

[Deihnyx.6318]

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > Again, people need to **stop arguing that ANet needs to get paid.** Nobody is disputing that point. Nobody thinks that ANet should not get paid. That is not an argument on the table. The question is, **when** ANet gets paid, should it be in the form of direct "what you see is what you get" purchases, or in the form of blind box gambling?

>

> As you say, this is the straw man that people feel they must use to get sympathy for Anet. Apparently these players feel that only way Anet can make money is to force players to keep throwing money at gamble boxes until they get what they actually want - thereby spending far more money on the single wanted item than they would have if Anet simply sold that item separately. And maybe Anet believes this also since they are the ones who introduced said gamble box.

>

> Which doesn't say much for Anet's supposed support of their artists' work. The players who use this straw man must also not have much of an opinion of Anet's work if they feel this is the only way Anet can make money.

 

Speaking of strawman...

Anet doesn't use RNG as their only way to make money. They offered a pack of mounts without RNG. And other things before that.

Misrepresented proposition.

[Djinn.9245]

> @Deihnyx.6318 said:

> > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > Again, people need to **stop arguing that ANet needs to get paid.** Nobody is disputing that point. Nobody thinks that ANet should not get paid. That is not an argument on the table. The question is, **when** ANet gets paid, should it be in the form of direct "what you see is what you get" purchases, or in the form of blind box gambling?

> >

> > As you say, this is the straw man that people feel they must use to get sympathy for Anet. Apparently these players feel that only way Anet can make money is to force players to keep throwing money at gamble boxes until they get what they actually want - thereby spending far more money on the single wanted item than they would have if Anet simply sold that item separately. And maybe Anet believes this also since they are the ones who introduced said gamble box.

> >

> > Which doesn't say much for Anet's supposed support of their artists' work. The players who use this straw man must also not have much of an opinion of Anet's work if they feel this is the only way Anet can make money.

>

> Speaking of strawman...

> Anet doesn't use RNG as their only way to make money. They offered a pack of mounts without RNG. And other things before that.

> Misrepresented proposition.

 

30 out of 36 equals "most" which is called "a generalization", not a straw man.

[Deihnyx.6318]

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> > @Deihnyx.6318 said:

> > > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > > > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > > Again, people need to **stop arguing that ANet needs to get paid.** Nobody is disputing that point. Nobody thinks that ANet should not get paid. That is not an argument on the table. The question is, **when** ANet gets paid, should it be in the form of direct "what you see is what you get" purchases, or in the form of blind box gambling?

> > >

> > > As you say, this is the straw man that people feel they must use to get sympathy for Anet. Apparently these players feel that only way Anet can make money is to force players to keep throwing money at gamble boxes until they get what they actually want - thereby spending far more money on the single wanted item than they would have if Anet simply sold that item separately. And maybe Anet believes this also since they are the ones who introduced said gamble box.

> > >

> > > Which doesn't say much for Anet's supposed support of their artists' work. The players who use this straw man must also not have much of an opinion of Anet's work if they feel this is the only way Anet can make money.

> >

> > Speaking of strawman...

> > Anet doesn't use RNG as their only way to make money. They offered a pack of mounts without RNG. And other things before that.

> > Misrepresented proposition.

>

> 30 out of 36 equals "most" which is called "a generalization", not a straw man.

 

You didn't say most, you said "the only way".

You also claimed that numbers were showing a good health of their business without proving it. There again, you said "This is simply not true". You don't generalize, you're speaking as if everything you said were hard facts. Whereas I'm not pretending to be true, I'm just saying that given the numbers I saw, the game wasn't making as much as you claimed.

 

Everything else is just opinions, opinions that obviously, if we were all sharing, there wouldn't be on ongoing discussion about it.

It's not because some of us are defending Anet against this overreacted outrage that we necessarily think "this is the only way to do". It's just one way, and it's just optional, and people like you are hurting the game by making it sound like it's the worst thing in the world. At the end of the day nothing was removed from you, they didn't break their promise on the pay to win, and they don't deserve to be compared to EA.

[pah.4931]

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> > @pah.4931 said:

> > > @Turial.1293 said:

> > > > @pah.4931 said:

> > > > Sinking gems into this also encourages Anet to continue developing the game GW2.

> > > As a player since GW1 beta.... if the games future direction is RNG loot boxes like mobile games then I hope it goes under today, nobody should be supporting greed from a company that was founded on supporting players best interests. The RNG aspect does not support the players, loot boxes are a corrupt practice and they know it. They have screwed up big time but don't seem to care, if that is how it is, then they deserve the irreparable damage to their good name and with it a large loss in business. I wonder how their stocks are looking...

> >

> > My argument is that it's not greed. It's an attempt to keep the lights on.

>

> People keep saying this as though the game isn't making money and is going to shut down any day. This is simply not true - you can look at their numbers yourself. And even if it was true, that doesn't excuse the use of sleazy business practices. If the game is really going to close down any day then it would be even worse to encourage players to spend more and more money on something they won't be able to use much longer. That's like a MMO selling an expansion and then closing down before anyone can even play the expansion they purchased.

 

Making money doesn't mean it's hitting expected numbers for people to keep their jobs. The game is aging. The genre is hemorrhaging players. The cash shop can only do so much (I am happy with my players look and don't care to change them at this point). You need NEW revenue streams (any business) to continue growth.

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @pah.4931 said:

> > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > > @pah.4931 said:

> > > > @Turial.1293 said:

> > > > > @pah.4931 said:

> > > > > Sinking gems into this also encourages Anet to continue developing the game GW2.

> > > > As a player since GW1 beta.... if the games future direction is RNG loot boxes like mobile games then I hope it goes under today, nobody should be supporting greed from a company that was founded on supporting players best interests. The RNG aspect does not support the players, loot boxes are a corrupt practice and they know it. They have screwed up big time but don't seem to care, if that is how it is, then they deserve the irreparable damage to their good name and with it a large loss in business. I wonder how their stocks are looking...

> > >

> > > My argument is that it's not greed. It's an attempt to keep the lights on.

> >

> > People keep saying this as though the game isn't making money and is going to shut down any day. This is simply not true - you can look at their numbers yourself. And even if it was true, that doesn't excuse the use of sleazy business practices. If the game is really going to close down any day then it would be even worse to encourage players to spend more and more money on something they won't be able to use much longer. That's like a MMO selling an expansion and then closing down before anyone can even play the expansion they purchased.

>

> Making money doesn't mean it's hitting expected numbers for people to keep their jobs. The game is aging. The genre is hemorrhaging players. The cash shop can only do so much (I am happy with my players look and don't care to change them at this point). You need NEW revenue streams (any business) to continue growth.

 

If it is losing players it's not likely it's because there's a lack of lootboxes on the store. It's because the content isn't balanced, engaging, and rewarding enough. There is no subscription putting people off.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Swagger.1459 said:

> Really? Please explain in detail how... me converting gold earned in-game to gems not free for me? And exactly how does Anet get their money from my gold to gems to item purchase? Hmmm?

 

"Free for you" is not the same thing as "free." When you purchase gems with gold, you are not spending money, but someone else has on your behalf. ANet still got paid for your purchase. That is not a case of ANet "generously gifting you" the item you wanted, that is just you taking part in a more circular funding mechanism that actually benefits them more than direct gem sales.

 

 

> @Deihnyx.6318 said:

> This opinion is not the one of many, I'm pretty sure you're a minority in your majority. Aka people just want to hate rng methods and want to get rid of them.

> I totally support alternative methods, but not strictly bashing "lootboxes" and putting them all in the same box, or even remotely comparing what we have here to EA.

 

Could you provide an example? I don't recall hearing anyone that was definitively against RNG *existing,* merely against it being the *only* option to acquire something. I mean you get a lot of casual "Remove all the RNG!" type comments, but you'd have to check with them to be sure that they would not be equally fine with RNG as an option if it was not blocking them from getting whatever it is they wanted.

 

> @Deihnyx.6318 said:

> Anet doesn't use RNG as their only way to make money. They offered a pack of mounts without RNG. And other things before that.

Misrepresented proposition.

 

Nobody is misrepresenting the realities of the situation.

 

Nobody is arguing that there don't exist *any* mount skins via non-RNG means.

 

Nobody is arguing that there aren't many other things in the game which are not RNG.

 

The point being argued is that **of the 30 skins released in the mount adoption set,** they are all only available via RNG, and if you want **one of those skins,** then you have no alternative but to purchase that pack, which offers a 1:30 chance of getting any specific skin on the first pull, and at best a 50:50 chance on the 29th pull.

 

The point of contention here is that there appear to be many who would like to gain access to *those specific skins,* without having to participate in the RNG gamble box mechanism to do so.

 

Now discuss *that* position or not, entirely up to you, but there is absolutely no benefit to pursuing strawman tangents that nobody is supporting.

 

> @pah.4931 said:

> Making money doesn't mean it's hitting expected numbers for people to keep their jobs. The game is aging. The genre is hemorrhaging players. The cash shop can only do so much (I am happy with my players look and don't care to change them at this point). You need NEW revenue streams (any business) to continue growth.

 

If so, they need to find ones that don't involve corrupt gambling schemes. Just because the job you're at isn't paying the bills does not entitle you to rob a bank.

[Deihnyx.6318]

These strawman arguments are always funny when people call them out then use them right after.

 

> > @Deihnyx.6318 said:

> > Anet doesn't use RNG as their only way to make money. They offered a pack of mounts without RNG. And other things before that.

> Misrepresented proposition.

> Nobody is misrepresenting the realities of the situation.

"Apparently these players feel that only way Anet can make money is to force players to keep throwing money at gamble boxes until they get what they actually want -

That is at best sarcasm, at worst a strawman itself.

"Nobody said RNG had to be their only way to make money". Right back at ya. That's even something I defended myself.

If you guys want to keep throwing that strawman wildcard around fine, but you're gonna have to start justifying why you keep using it while providing subjective, misrepresented propositions yourselves.

 

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> If so, they need to find ones that don't involve corrupt gambling schemes. Just because the job you're at isn't paying the bills does not entitle you to rob a bank.

Another one. Does Anet steal money? No they don't.

 

I'm willing to discuss anything but not if the petty strawman game is invoked every time to avoid real argumentation. While we're at it, I could just calmy repeat that this comparison with EA and Darth Vador is just a strawman, no need for argumentation. Done.

 

> Nobody is arguing that there don't exist *any* mount skins via non-RNG means.

No, but people don't want these, they want the RNG skins, so they complain about the RNG skins. If they were all ugly who would have cared?

Did people care about account bound BL items? I don't remember this "reality of the situation" back then. owo

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Deihnyx.6318 said:

>"Apparently these players feel that only way Anet can make money is to force players to keep throwing money at gamble boxes until they get what they actually want -

That is at best sarcasm, at worst a strawman itself.

 

It's *clearly* sarcasm, or more accurately hyperbole. It's exaggerating the point that many *players* on the "shut up about loot boxes" side of the discussion are claiming that ANet had "no other option" but to have gambling in their game. It is the position of the rest of us that they did in fact have other valid options.

 

>"Nobody said RNG had to be their only way to make money". Right back at ya. That's even something I defended myself.

 

That is not a statement I can find anyone else saying, so I'm unsure why you put it into quotes.

 

>Another one. Does Anet steal money? No they don't.

 

No they don't.

 

>While we're at it, I could just calmy repeat that this comparison with EA and Darth Vador is just a strawman, no need for argumentation. Done.

 

It's not a strawman, it's a relevant example of another company releasing a similarly unpopular monetization scheme, and facing consumer backlash over it.

 

>No, but people don't want these, they want the RNG skins, so they complain about the RNG skins. If they were all ugly who would have cared?

>Did people care about account bound BL items? I don't remember this "reality of the situation" back then. owo

 

Exactly.

[pah.4931]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

 

>

> > @pah.4931 said:

> > Making money doesn't mean it's hitting expected numbers for people to keep their jobs. The game is aging. The genre is hemorrhaging players. The cash shop can only do so much (I am happy with my players look and don't care to change them at this point). You need NEW revenue streams (any business) to continue growth.

>

> If so, they need to find ones that don't involve corrupt gambling schemes. Just because the job you're at isn't paying the bills does not entitle you to rob a bank.

 

This logic is really difficult to follow. Robbing banks is illegal and its willfully taking money from others without their consent, by force, usually under threat of death or harm. Loot boxes are selling cosmetic shiny pixels of mounts to consenting adults...

 

I am all for arguing and debating these types of business decisions and design choices, but y'all make it really hard sometimes.

[pah.4931]

> @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> > @pah.4931 said:

> > > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > > > @pah.4931 said:

> > > > > @Turial.1293 said:

> > > > > > @pah.4931 said:

> > > > > > Sinking gems into this also encourages Anet to continue developing the game GW2.

> > > > > As a player since GW1 beta.... if the games future direction is RNG loot boxes like mobile games then I hope it goes under today, nobody should be supporting greed from a company that was founded on supporting players best interests. The RNG aspect does not support the players, loot boxes are a corrupt practice and they know it. They have screwed up big time but don't seem to care, if that is how it is, then they deserve the irreparable damage to their good name and with it a large loss in business. I wonder how their stocks are looking...

> > > >

> > > > My argument is that it's not greed. It's an attempt to keep the lights on.

> > >

> > > People keep saying this as though the game isn't making money and is going to shut down any day. This is simply not true - you can look at their numbers yourself. And even if it was true, that doesn't excuse the use of sleazy business practices. If the game is really going to close down any day then it would be even worse to encourage players to spend more and more money on something they won't be able to use much longer. That's like a MMO selling an expansion and then closing down before anyone can even play the expansion they purchased.

> >

> > Making money doesn't mean it's hitting expected numbers for people to keep their jobs. The game is aging. The genre is hemorrhaging players. The cash shop can only do so much (I am happy with my players look and don't care to change them at this point). You need NEW revenue streams (any business) to continue growth.

>

> If it is losing players it's not likely it's because there's a lack of lootboxes on the store. It's because the content isn't balanced, engaging, and rewarding enough. There is no subscription putting people off.

 

It's losing players because that's what games do as they age, as players move on and as newer games get released. It has nothing to do with subs or loot boxes or balance. Those things can have effects on player population, sure. But if you quit this game over not being able to ride a lightning mount then you were probably going to quit it within a few months anyways.

 

My point was (and always has been), put yourself in Anet's' shoes. If NCSoft or other "overlords" are breathing down your neck to hit quarterly numbers or else they pull your funding or force you to shutter the game, and then Bob the marketing science whiz shows up with a spreadsheet showing that loot boxes, while not popular, will increase revenue by 18% ... would you tell Bob to take a hike and let the game die because PRINCIPLES! (even though loot boxes are legal and this game isn't even close to p2w)?? Or would you make the tough choice and decide to upset some players but keep a few hundred people with families gainfully employed????? (not to mention a few thousand people playing a game they love)

[Tekey.7946]

> @pah.4931 said:

> It's losing players because that's what games do as they age, as players move on and as newer games get released.

 

Interesting, which new MMORPGs were released lately? Where did all the people go?

[Majic.4801]

> @Tekey.7946 said:

> > @pah.4931 said:

> > It's losing players because that's what games do as they age, as players move on and as newer games get released.

>

> Interesting, which new MMORPGs were released lately? Where did all the people go?

 

The correct answer is: Star Citizen.

 

Star Citizen.

 

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @pah.4931 said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

>

> >

> > > @pah.4931 said:

> > > Making money doesn't mean it's hitting expected numbers for people to keep their jobs. The game is aging. The genre is hemorrhaging players. The cash shop can only do so much (I am happy with my players look and don't care to change them at this point). You need NEW revenue streams (any business) to continue growth.

> >

> > If so, they need to find ones that don't involve corrupt gambling schemes. Just because the job you're at isn't paying the bills does not entitle you to rob a bank.

>

> This logic is really difficult to follow. Robbing banks is illegal and its willfully taking money from others without their consent, by force, usually under threat of death or harm. Loot boxes are selling cosmetic shiny pixels of mounts to consenting adults...

>

> I am all for arguing and debating these types of business decisions and design choices, but y'all make it really hard sometimes.

 

You clearly missed the point, and I'm sorry for that, but I think it would be a waste of both of our time for me to take a second pass at it.

 

> @Tekey.7946 said:

> > @pah.4931 said:

> > It's losing players because that's what games do as they age, as players move on and as newer games get released.

>

> Interesting, which new MMORPGs were released lately? Where did all the people go?

 

Fate: Grand/Order.

[Frostfang.5109]

> @Cynn.1659 said:

> Loot boxes are here to provide players with a sense of pride and accomplishment for acquiring different mount skins.

 

Taking part in the lottery rather....

[Frostfang.5109]

This RNG has become a problem because of two simple reasons.

* Ppl dont like all skins.

* ppl cant use all skins.

[WeedyZeGreedy.8635]

Well if you release another 2k gem mount skin you should get ready for some dry gemstore months. Gliders were usually 700 for backpack/glider combo. A 5 skin mount bundle like the halloween one seems fair in that range, but not a single mount skin.

[Devata.6589]

> @pah.4931 said:

>

> It's losing players because that's what games do as they age, as players move on and as newer games get released. It has nothing to do with subs or loot boxes or balance.

 

Well the first part of your statement can be proven wrong.

Here are the player-stats for WoW: https://www.statista.com/statistics/276601/number-of-world-of-warcraft-subscribers-by-quarter/ It did grow for the first 5 years.

And here are steamstats from FINAL FANTASY XIV: http://steamcharts.com/app/39210 Put the from as low as you can get and you also see an increase overtime.

 

Compare that with the numbers from GW2 https://i.imgur.com/6j0dsRn.png and you notice a decrease over time, starting at release.

 

It' s not so much a box that does it, but by taking elements out of the game (by selling most cosmetics instead of allowing people to really play for them (other then grinding gold)) people will get bored by the game sooner what will results in lower population and lower earnings overt-time. It's impossible to proof that this is what did cause the decline (and it's likely a factor of multiple things) but the decline is noticeable and no it's not just aging. You might in fact expect some decline overtime based on age, especially when a game is 5,5 years old like GW2. But just the idea that everything is fine and decline is just because of age is to simple.

 

>Those things can have effects on player population, sure. But if you quit this game over not being able to ride a lightning mount then you were probably going to quit it within a few months anyways.

 

This point has some validation to it. The amount of grind people can take is different, how much they get effected by not being able to play directly for many skins is also different, how soon they get bored by x content is also different. So while it's not true that they would all leave after half a year, you would expect them to slowly go away. That is the decline I mentioned before. Now 5,5 years down the line, you would expect most of the people left are fine with not having many cosmetics in game, grinding gold for it or spending money on it. That is also why I think that changing anything now would not result in an incline anymore. It's to late for that. However this uproar shows there are still people that are not just fine accepting everything a company throws at them. In addition, the fact that there is more and more a discussion going on about how micro-transactions and RNG-boxes are bad for the industry in the gaming-community (also outside of GW2) is likely also a big factor.

 

More and more people are opening their eyes.

[pah.4931]

> @Tekey.7946 said:

> > @pah.4931 said:

> > It's losing players because that's what games do as they age, as players move on and as newer games get released.

>

> Interesting, which new MMORPGs were released lately? Where did all the people go?

 

MMORPGSs that have launched (in the West) after GW2 (based on a very quick Google search): ArcheAge, Neverwtiner, FFXIV, Black Desert, Elder Scrolls, Wildstar, Tree of Savior, Albion Online, and three WoW expansions. There have also been countless non-MMORPGs, which takes up player time too. Blizzard alone launched three WILDLY successful PC games since the GW2 launch in 2012.

 

But that's besides the point. Almost every Online game hits a point where active players starts trending downward. GW2, I can guarantee you, is one of those games right now. There are spikes at expansions, but I don't have to explain to what a "trend" is.

 

Now. Think about your average player. He's already bought enough bank/bag space, and extra character slots (they probably aren't adding new profs), and QoL gizmos, and all those other things from the cash shop. He either doesn't need gold or has a lot of it. For the most part, he's probably happy with how his characters look. Fashion Wars is probably fairly niche when considering the entire playerbase (and by that I mean, most people don't make tons of different looks for one character, but instead get one good look and stick with it for a long while).

 

So we got fewer people playing and fewer people buying stuff. What do you think happens to a game like that if it doesn't rely on one of two things: 1) P2W; and 2) RNG loot boxes.

 

Anet KNEW there would be tons of backlash with this decision and they did it anyway. I don't think it's time to lock up your wife and kids and cat, doom and gloom, but I do think it's telling. Gem Shop sales are down. This was an attempt at bringing them back... and Anet was clearly content losing players over. Pretty telling.

 

[Knuckle Joe.7408]

Arenanet be taking advice from EA it seems.

[ProtoGunner.4953]

One thing I noticed is that GW2 lost publicity and momentum with the HoT fail. They had to make an expansion similar to PoF to attract more players. Now people ask me "this game still exists"? There weren't even reviews of PoF from big gaming sites like gamespot. They just ignored it mostly. Compare it to Overwatch, Dota, LOL etc. They have soooooo much more media coverage. GW2 became an underdog which is a shame. They barley got a metacritic score since you need 4 critics to qualify:

 

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/guild-wars-2-path-of-fire

 

Now there are only 9 critics on the whole internet. Compare this with the actual expansion of FF14 with 20 critics:

 

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/final-fantasy-xiv-stormblood

 

It's a shame and I don't exactly know why PoF didn't get that much media coverage. Also on Twitch GW2 is on one of the last places of the 'bigger' MMOs.

[Menadena.7482]

> @Tekey.7946 said:

> > @pah.4931 said:

> > It's losing players because that's what games do as they age, as players move on and as newer games get released.

>

> Interesting, which new MMORPGs were released lately? Where did all the people go?

 

No one place. Phone games. New small niche titles. Some games that went FTP recently. Older titles people just had not played before. We are in a lull of new top tier MMO titles.

[Orion Templar.4589]

We vote and communicate with our wallets. For me personally, the adoption license randomness was a real turn off. And the 2000 gems for the single mount skin was too high. Thus I purchased neither. I'm still a fan of the game though, and I've purchased other items I felt were more reasonably prices (glider skins, etc.) If single mount skins are available for direct purchase in the 400 gem range that I like, I will buy them. If they continue to be in the 2000 gem range, I will not buy them.

[Menadena.7482]

> @ProtoGunner.4953 said:

> One thing I noticed is that GW2 lost publicity and momentum with the HoT fail. They had to make an expansion similar to PoF to attract more players.

 

Yes, it is a shame. Back before HOT GW2 was on everyone's list of top games. Rarely at the very top but respectable. Now even youtube is more likely to show me vids about new games I have not heard of ... if it shows gw2 stuff it is because I am subscribed to the person that made the video.

 

Apparently a content drought, followed by an expansion that got mixed reviews, then another content drought immediately after hurts your overall image. Who knew?

[Menadena.7482]

My guess is anet is just avoiding us on this topic until season 4 starts getting publicity. Unfortunately for them the negative PR they got is not likely to go away any time soon.