Tekoneiric.6817 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 Until the 30 mount skins are opened up into a system where the users can purchase the exact skin they want at a reasonable price I will not buy gem with real money. I might convert gold and purchase other items but not RNG lootboxes. I will not purchase a 2000 gem skin either. Honestly the most I'll pay for any single high quality skin is 1000 gems for a high quality one. I don't condemn other players for using RNG but I refuse to support it myself. I don't mind supporting the game via micro-transactions but buying something for thousands of gems is not micro-transactions. Those are stepping into major purchase territory. For $25 I can fill my car up with gas and have some change left over for a snack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eds.2081 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 cut price for mounts in half, watch the dollars/euros pile up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @Devata.6589 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. 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 This might be a factor, but the two games you reference are subscription games and so they can afford to keep items out of the gem shops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @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. Now people ask me "this game still exists"? The problem is that GW2 has changed too much trying to appeal to all kinds of players, which has turned off large number of players. There was a point before HoT when GW2 was viewed as the casual-friendly game. Large numbers of casual players loved GW2. Then they introduced a really difficult expansion in HoT, raiding, Esports, etc to try to appeal to the more hard-core gamer. But they drove away many casual gamers. So they probably didn't ultimately gain many players in the end. But then it seems that Anet aren't actually supporting the hard-core aspects very well. Not many new raids, balance issues with PvP, WvW seems to be declining, etc. An MMO can rarely be great for all types of players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @Menadena.7482 said: > 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. Unless they put another gamble box in the store... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matick.4132 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @pah.4931 said: > 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. > **Now if THAT'S your attempt on Game-Design, you should quit the business anyway** (not YOU @"pah.4931" , but the pretend person in your comment). This might be the event horizon of an EA manager, or whatever big corporate you're on, but I DO want to think that this isn't the case of ANet and they actually DO have some ppl in their kru that are a tat more intelligent then these blockheads! C'mon, even a short _"let me google it for you"_ would give you more answers, then these two low attempts of praying on your players intelligence. **Edit:** Oh, I forgot the 3rd attempt of rip-off, because it wasn't in your post, _"Subscription"_! Yes, it might give you growth and money, because you're forcing your customers to the system (e.g. if they want or need the software in their field), but is it a good and fair system for the user? Not at all! There are – as always in life – grey areas, but that's it. If you're forcing your customer/user/player to do something (and exploitation and gambling addictions is in the play here) they'd normally avoid, then yes, this is bad business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackgamma.1809 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 you attached an expensive price tag on rng mounts, shame on you. variety doesn't mean anything if you make 3-8 skins look infinitely better than the rest. which only makes your rng system look far worse than it should be and also makes your company look super shady. also. SHAME on you. for making super fancy skins to invalidate the work of your other artists that took pride in the super lame in comparison skins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devata.6589 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @Djinn.9245 said: > > @Devata.6589 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. 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 > > This might be a factor, but the two games you reference are subscription games and so they can afford to keep items out of the gem shops. You do now make a direct link between this downwards trend and how heavy a cash-shop is. The two games that show an increase indeed have a very minimal cash-shop in place. I don't know if there are cash-shop games that show a similar trend, but it would be an interesting comparison between many successful games. Btw, there is another game that I linked as well, the GW2 graph https://i.imgur.com/6j0dsRn.png does also show the numbers for GW1. That was a game that had no cash-shop until Juli 2006 and after that a minimal one. See: https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_In-Game_Store Also it did not have a subscription. And we did see an increase as well (at least until Eye of the North, but by that time most focus had shifted to GW2). You talk about the ability to afford the luxury of not having a heavy cash-shop. But this does not really make sense when looking at those numbers, if you are 'losing' (making less and less) money overtime by implementing the cash-shop then you can't say they need it from a financial perspective. Also look at the initial earning for GW2, part of that will also have been cash-shop but you can expect a huge part simply being game-sales. If they managed to keep that number by not losing players or even gaining players, and would push out an expansion +- every year, they would be making more then enough money now without a cash-shop (possibly more then they earn now). So it's not really that they would not be able to effort it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silyth.7382 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 A bunch of thoughts that may not flow completely: I think they would have received a lot less upset if it had been random for specific mount. Visit the raptor stable, Skimmer stable, griffin stable etc and for 400-600 gems get a random new friend. After all when I head to the animal shelter / pet store I go in looking for a type of animal but not what their coat looks like. I would be very alarmed to go in for a cat and be handed a box for a Great Dane. I would have bought several randoms at the 400 (even if it had been a little more than that) if I wasn't going to get stuck with all the bunny-kangaroo rat skins... Not that there is anything wrong with them. Artists did a good job on design. I just can't picture my Charr not getting motion sick on them). I want some diversity for specific critters, but not get stuck with only skins for the ones I try to avoid using. With that said: the art in the skins is fantastic (which is why we are sad we can't access them. I would easily impulse but many of them individually at the 600-1000 gem price. And that's the goal right? Lots of impulse buys. 2000 is too much for an impulse for one skin (it's fine for the sets). I look forward to future releases like the wintersday ones (common wierd toy them, I want a windup/clockwork raptor). I do think it's a little harsh for people to say they will never support again because of this. I love gw2. Amazing stories that you can get attached to npc people (apples for tybalt) and immerse oneself in. I will always support them for this. Am I sad about the giant stable, yes. Will I slowly buy the skins with 1-2 a week, probably (I am relieved to find out they won't be adding more to that set). Do I hope for other options in the near future? Of course. Do I think it'll happen, sure. Just in time for holiday gift card spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Blue.4530 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 With looking how we get the griffon mount and that you also need to use gold to acquire it, I feel this would have been a great way to work towards the different mount skins AND a way for arenanet to earn money via gem sales. It would also give a huge boost to in game content. Basically, like with other scavenger hunt achievements, to earn an adoption license, you would have an achievement with things to find, events to complete and items to buy. There could be an achievement for each possible skin, or fewer repeatable achievements but with the RNG element. The more epic looking skins could require more work, or even left in the gemstore, with or without the RNG. This would give a lot more to do and make players more proud of the mount, rather than it just be a look that someone just through money at. I personally loved working for things like the Halloween back piece and griffon. Even if you may not even want to use the skin, it's far better to complete that type of achievement than to just get a few achievement points that really don't account for much. It's great for the ones that like to complete collections, have the need for a goal to complete, or a nice reward that happens to almost complete from playing a lot. And as the gold element has the option of paying bit at a time, it'll make it easier, but with the buying gems element to make things a lot easier. So overall: More in game content. People wouldn't mind paying for gems if it was to speed up the acquisition. People have more choice but there could still be the RNG element. It would stretch out how fast people could acquire them, so less surge and less need to keep pumping skins into the gemstore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @Tekoneiric.6817 said: >Until the 30 mount skins are opened up into a system where the users can purchase the exact skin they want at a reasonable price I will not buy gem with real money. I might convert gold and purchase other items but not RNG lootboxes. Just a reminder, buying gems using gold is NOT punishing Anet. They make more money off that than if you bought the gems using cash. If you want to boycott the gem store, you have to *boycott the gem store.* > @Silyth.7382 said: > I think they would have received a lot less upset if it had been random for specific mount. No, the only way it could have avoided backlash would have been if it was random for a specific mount *skin.* Like it could be as random as they want, so long as I was guaranteed to get each skin I wanted the first time I spent money to pull for it. Anything less than that would be unacceptable and it'd be misleading to allow them to think otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddoctor.2738 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @Ohoni.6057 said: > Just a reminder, buying gems using gold is NOT punishing Anet. They make more money off that than if you could the gems using cash. If you want to boycott the game store, you have to boycott the gem store. Not only that, but indirectly you help with further gem sales, because if you buy gems with gold, the gem price will go up, which means more players might not have enough gold to buy what they want and instead use their credit cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndigoSundown.5419 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @maddoctor.2738 said: > > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > Just a reminder, buying gems using gold is NOT punishing Anet. They make more money off that than if you could the gems using cash. If you want to boycott the game store, you have to boycott the gem store. > > Not only that, but indirectly you help with further gem sales, because if you buy gems with gold, the gem price will go up, which means more players might not have enough gold to buy what they want and instead use their credit cards. > To build further, when more gold goes into the exchange, the amount of gold needed to get X gems goes up. This means a more attractive rate for people putting gems in to get gold. Edited due to feedback from GreyWolf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyWolf.8670 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @IndigoSundown.5419 said: > > @maddoctor.2738 said: > > > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > > Just a reminder, buying gems using gold is NOT punishing Anet. They make more money off that than if you could the gems using cash. If you want to boycott the game store, you have to boycott the gem store. > > > > Not only that, but indirectly you help with further gem sales, because if you buy gems with gold, the gem price will go up, which means more players might not have enough gold to buy what they want and instead use their credit cards. > > > > To build further, when the gold-into-gems ratio goes up, so does the gems-into-gold ratio. This means those buying gems to exchange for gold get a better deal. That is not how supply and demand works. The cost and profit does not go up and down in tandem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tekoneiric.6817 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 > @maddoctor.2738 said: > > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > Just a reminder, buying gems using gold is NOT punishing Anet. They make more money off that than if you could the gems using cash. If you want to boycott the game store, you have to boycott the gem store. > > Not only that, but indirectly you help with further gem sales, because if you buy gems with gold, the gem price will go up, which means more players might not have enough gold to buy what they want and instead use their credit cards. > Then I will not use the gem store... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndigoSundown.5419 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 > @GreyWolf.8670 said: > > @IndigoSundown.5419 said: > > > @maddoctor.2738 said: > > > > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > > > Just a reminder, buying gems using gold is NOT punishing Anet. They make more money off that than if you could the gems using cash. If you want to boycott the game store, you have to boycott the gem store. > > > > > > Not only that, but indirectly you help with further gem sales, because if you buy gems with gold, the gem price will go up, which means more players might not have enough gold to buy what they want and instead use their credit cards. > > > > > > > To build further, when the gold-into-gems ratio goes up, so does the gems-into-gold ratio. This means those buying gems to exchange for gold get a better deal. > > That is not how supply and demand works. The cost and profit does not go up and down in tandem. The exchange has a supply of both Gems and Gold. When you trade to the exchange you influence the supply of each. The exchange rate is relative to current supply of each. The price changes geometrically as one pool empties creating a better exchange rate for the low supplied currency. The supplies are contained entirely within the exchange. https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Currency_exchange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellisande.5218 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 I don't find the living world content to be worth the cost of having content lacking paid expansions and having all the visual content be in the cash shop. I'd much rather just have content rich paid expansions and no living world, especially since imo the living world content is poor and using the money from the paid expansions to also fund the living world content guarantees that the paid expansions are always going to be poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellisande.5218 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 > @highlandish.9784 said: > > @JaddynnStarr.5201 said: > > Glad to see a response in the least here.... not happy with the whole cave this one time, we promise we wont do it again vibe I'm getting tho.... How about you offer the 30 skins and allow us to pick the ones we want from them at a set price rather then try to keep it the same and squeeze it dry? I wont buy the random packs so you can forget that nonsense all together. You have the ability, capability to fix and change this..... just do it. > > > > think of it this way: they wont re-release these rng skins as single purchases or copy these old skins next time as that will annoy the previous buyers. so the next skins will have to be better looking than the old skins and they will be single purchases. If buyers are annoyed then that means those buyers are experiencing buyer's remorse. They have no one to blame for their buyer's remorse but themselves. That the previous buyers regret their decision is not a satisfactory reason to refuse to change a bad system and make those skins available individually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoltar MacRoth.7146 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 Personally, I'm intrigued by the discussions that must have gone into this marketing tactic before it was implemented. Of course, we'll never know what they are. But I can't help wondering, how more/less profitable would it have been if they instead released individual skins at 700 AND an rng pack for each mount where the skins are 500 each AND the 30-pack where the skins are 400 each? That would provide for those who want to buy specific, those who wants specific kind of mount but don't mind a gamble to save some money and those that love a big gamble, all at the same time. OR... if they had released five skins each week, one for each mount type, over a period of six weeks to maintain the interest? There are any number of marketing strategies that COULD have been used. I'm just curious how they arrived at this one, and whether it will pan out as they expected. But of course, there are some mysteries that we'll never know the answers to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 > @"Zoltar MacRoth.7146" said: > Personally, I'm intrigued by the discussions that must have gone into this marketing tactic before it was implemented. Of course, we'll never know what they are. But I can't help wondering, how more/less profitable would it have been if they instead released individual skins at 700 AND an rng pack for each mount where the skins are 500 each AND the 30-pack where the skins are 400 each? That would provide for those who want to buy specific, those who wants specific kind of mount but don't mind a gamble to save some money and those that love a big gamble, all at the same time. OR... if they had released five skins each week, one for each mount type, over a period of six weeks to maintain the interest? There are any number of marketing strategies that COULD have been used. I'm just curious how they arrived at this one, and whether it will pan out as they expected. But of course, there are some mysteries that we'll never know the answers to. While we can't know exactly what was said, we can know from general marketing that if you don't provide reasonably-priced alternatives to the gamble box, a higher number of people will use the gamble box than otherwise would, simply because they have no alternative. Add to that the excitement to purchase mount skins because mounts had just been introduced to the game. The one individual skin isn't meant as an actual alternative given the high price, but as a foil to show what a "good bargain" the gamble box was. Although I'm sure its a bonus for Anet if people actually buy it. And we know from many of the forum comments that this strategy worked. People stating that they purchased licenses even though they don't like gamble boxes. Many of them regretting the purchase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 > @Ellisande.5218 said: > I don't find the living world content to be worth the cost of having content lacking paid expansions and having all the visual content be in the cash shop. > > I'd much rather just have content rich paid expansions and no living world, especially since imo the living world content is poor and using the money from the paid expansions to also fund the living world content guarantees that the paid expansions are always going to be poor. It's not an "either/or" situation. The teams working on Living World would not be working on making armor skins for drops. I'm much rather have living world than having more Outfits I'd never use available as drops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalibri.5861 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > @Ellisande.5218 said: > > I don't find the living world content to be worth the cost of having content lacking paid expansions and having all the visual content be in the cash shop. > > > > I'd much rather just have content rich paid expansions and no living world, especially since imo the living world content is poor and using the money from the paid expansions to also fund the living world content guarantees that the paid expansions are always going to be poor. > > It's not an "either/or" situation. The teams working on Living World would not be working on making armor skins for drops. I'm much rather have living world than having more Outfits I'd never use available as drops. > > I maintain that ArenaNet needs to communicate with their players much better than they currently do regarding the gem shop. They could streamline their efforts so much and very likely make more money if they'd create designs, get feedback, and produce things players actually want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonsugar.4793 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 > @Zeivu.3615 said: > > @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 kitten anymore. You get a stacking 2% increase every 30 days you log in. You need gold sinks, especially when gems are tied to them. > My statement was **not** about the process of gaining the mounts themselves. I have all five. I'm fine with that wonderful adventure. **I'm referring to the bundle!** So what if it doesn't contain duplicates. Let me point something out: you buy it you're stuck with a number of skins that you may not like. **It's a take-all or suffer-the-RNG crap deal.** Gold is easy to come by... IF you're a veteran player. The new players are not so lucky. If I were new I'd have better priorities, like farming gold for legendaries. Mount skins - those are just fluff. Skins don't increase character stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 > @Kalibri.5861 said: > > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > > @Ellisande.5218 said: > > > I don't find the living world content to be worth the cost of having content lacking paid expansions and having all the visual content be in the cash shop. > > > > > > I'd much rather just have content rich paid expansions and no living world, especially since imo the living world content is poor and using the money from the paid expansions to also fund the living world content guarantees that the paid expansions are always going to be poor. > > > > It's not an "either/or" situation. The teams working on Living World would not be working on making armor skins for drops. I'm much rather have living world than having more Outfits I'd never use available as drops. > > > > > > I maintain that ArenaNet needs to communicate with their players much better than they currently do regarding the gem shop. They could streamline their efforts so much and very likely make more money if they'd create designs, get feedback, and produce things players actually want. I can definitely agree on that. Rather than just making whatever and throwing it up at whatever price and just accepting the result, they could get a lot more out of a two-way conversation, giving players options to help decide what gets more attention, what methods of distribution we want. Instead of "not apologizing," they could ASK FIRST. "Do you want us to release 30 mount skins in a gamble box?" "No thank you." "Ok, we can do something better then." That is SO much easier than issuing refunds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopeUrban.2578 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > @Kalibri.5861 said: > > > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > > > @Ellisande.5218 said: > > > > I don't find the living world content to be worth the cost of having content lacking paid expansions and having all the visual content be in the cash shop. > > > > > > > > I'd much rather just have content rich paid expansions and no living world, especially since imo the living world content is poor and using the money from the paid expansions to also fund the living world content guarantees that the paid expansions are always going to be poor. > > > > > > It's not an "either/or" situation. The teams working on Living World would not be working on making armor skins for drops. I'm much rather have living world than having more Outfits I'd never use available as drops. > > > > > > > > > > I maintain that ArenaNet needs to communicate with their players much better than they currently do regarding the gem shop. They could streamline their efforts so much and very likely make more money if they'd create designs, get feedback, and produce things players actually want. > > I can definitely agree on that. Rather than just making whatever and throwing it up at whatever price and just accepting the result, they could get a lot more out of a two-way conversation, giving players options to help decide what gets more attention, what methods of distribution we want. Instead of "not apologizing," they could ASK FIRST. > > "Do you want us to release 30 mount skins in a gamble box?" > "No thank you." > "Ok, we can do something better then." > > That is SO much easier than issuing refunds. If the goal was to offer things aimed at the majority of the community, they would be focusing on increasing the value of the base packages that all players have access to my making their content and rewards diverse enough to hit a wide range of player desires. The goal is not to do that. The goal is to create a massive number of diverse options at a lower individual customer value to more effectively monetize people with more money to spend and create a system of cosmetic haves and have nots that turn those that buy them in to marketing tools for those that do not. That's how microtransactions work. You withhold things you think players want so that they have to buy them rather than allowing the entire player base to earn them with equal effort, skill, or time, through gameplay even though they all have an identical financial investment. if you're really good at it you create a conversion market for player labor to microtransaction dollars so that people buying tradable microtransactions with ingame effort are actually generating even more money by effectively making those items cost the total user base more by taxing the gold/gems conversion both ways. Then you call it a "player choice" even though the only players that actually have a choice to make are those willing to pull out a credit card, or spend time farming gold to pay another player who doesn't have to put up with the same grind because their credit card dollars are worth more than your fun. The only player choice is either to pull out a credit card or suffer a grind that the customers they're actually targeting don't have to. Either pay more, or get less for your time, skill, or effort, that's the goal of microtransactions. They're there to make the game more fun for people that pay more, and less fun for people that pay less, to encourage them to pay more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts