A Message About the Mount Adoption License

[Matick.4132]

Now THIS just happend to happen.

 

Apparently there IS a way to react in a proper way and shut a whole thing down if it happens to be a veeeery bad idea.

 

EA just shut down the whole in-game store and apologised wholesome, but the most interesting fact is that they took a (probably) painful decision in favour of the gamers!

They’re now rebuilding the whole system. We have to see what that means, but it was imho a better way than that, what this msg here from ANet gave us.

 

What do you think folks?

 

[fizzypetal.7936]

> @Matick.4132 said:

> Now THIS just happend to happen.

>

> Apparently there IS a way to react in a proper way and shut a whole thing down if it happens to be a veeeery bad idea.

>

> EA just shut down the whole in-game store and apologised wholesome, but the most interesting fact is that they took a (probably) painful decision in favour of the gamers!

> They’re now rebuilding the whole system. We have to see what that means, but it was imho a better way than that, what this msg here from ANet gave us.

>

> What do you think folks?

>

>

 

The point that jumped out at me is this: 'We've heard concerns about potentially giving players unfair advantages.'

 

And those advantages were to do with unlocking characters integral to the Star Wars story. So it is right they rethink that and I'm glad they have.

 

Quotes from this article on BBC news...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41997252

 

> "Look at what Blizzard is doing with loot boxes in Overwatch - it has been a successful business for them.

>

> "But what they put in those loot boxes are cosmetic items. They don't affect gameplay. And you can also earn all the items through gameplay.

>

> "The Star Wars experience without Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader strikes me as not the experience people would look for. The controversy is, 'I've paid $60, let me have the experience.'"

>

So in my world, the comparing of what has occurred in Star Wars Battlefront II and GW2 is like comparing apples to potatoes. All the mount skins _technically_ are available through gameplay - play the game, earn gold, convert to gems. One can hope that for those like myself not wanting to pay for mount skin loot boxes or pay a premium price for a single premium mount skin, other ways of acquiring said skins will over time be introduced into the game.

 

 

[Sykper.6583]

Yea...that whole tweet might be more believable if it wasn't from EA and instead some other company seeing the error of their ways.

 

Popeurban has the right idea, EA can make a statement like that because they've already been shamed into making perhaps the most dirty Microtransaction scandals ever, and that they've already gotten their money from the fans. Taking a hit, letting the fire die down, and bringing it back later is their tactic, it's been like that for years.

[NotASmurf.1725]

> @Lilo.8230 said:

 

> I'm just super happy with no subscription fee. I'll pay for anything as long as I don't have to pay to play to be honest.

 

Honestly, what 's the logic behind that? Have you ever sat down to think about what you just said?

 

You are okay with Anet exploiting its players through new methods of monetization through a more and more oppressive gemstore and you're willing to pay 100$+ for this happily because there is no sub fee?

 

You do realize that you are probably spending 10 times more money on this game than if it had a sub fee, but end up getting 1/10th of the content of a P2P MMO?

 

[Goettel.4389]

> @NotASmurf.1725 said:

> > @Lilo.8230 said:

>

> > I'm just super happy with no subscription fee. I'll pay for anything as long as I don't have to pay to play to be honest.

>

> Honestly, what 's the logic behind that? Have you ever sat down to think about what you just said?

>

> You are okay with Anet exploiting its players through new methods of monetization through a more and more oppressive gemstore and you're willing to pay 100$+ for this happily because there is no sub fee?

>

> You do realize that you are probably spending 10 times more money on this game than if it had a sub fee, but end up getting 1/10th of the content of a P2P MMO?

>

It's really not that hard to understand: play for free, buy more content if you want it and spent some money on cosmetic items if you like.

All of those are voluntary actions, so the word "exploitation" can't apply.

[Devata.6589]

> @Matick.4132 said:

> Now THIS just happend to happen.

>

> Apparently there IS a way to react in a proper way and shut a whole thing down if it happens to be a veeeery bad idea.

>

> EA just shut down the whole in-game store and apologised wholesome, but the most interesting fact is that they took a (probably) painful decision in favour of the gamers!

> They’re now rebuilding the whole system. We have to see what that means, but it was imho a better way than that, what this msg here from ANet gave us.

>

> What do you think folks?

>

>

 

I don't think much of it because what happens after they "rebuild" it? It this not just a way to boost sales now and then get back into it as well.

Also while I do think no cash-shop is the best, it's way to late for that with GW2. At release that could have made a big difference, not anymore. So at the very least EA / DICE reacted on time instead of waiting until there is no way back.

[Grey Moon.6531]

I wonder if E(vil)A's response was due to them listening to "customer feedback" or that phone call from Disney!

[Devata.6589]

> @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> Quotes from this article on BBC news...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41997252

>

> > "Look at what Blizzard is doing with loot boxes in Overwatch - it has been a successful business for them.

> >

> > "But what they put in those loot boxes are cosmetic items. They don't affect gameplay. And you can also earn all the items through gameplay.

> So in my world, the comparing of what has occurred in Star Wars Battlefront II and GW2 is like comparing apples to potatoes. All the mount skins _technically_ are available through gameplay - play the game, earn gold, convert to gems. One can hope that for those like myself not wanting to pay for mount skin loot boxes or pay a premium price for a single premium mount skin, other ways of acquiring said skins will over time be introduced into the game.

 

There is a big difference indeed. But the biggest difference I see is that while in a game as Overwatch skins do not affect game-play. Other items (like in Battlefront II) would effect the game-play.

 

So affecting the game-play is the important factor here.

 

The thing is... in a game like GW2 (MMORPG's and some other type of games) skins do affect the game-play. Where in Overwatch having a nice skin is a nice extra, chasing skins in GW2 (MMORPG's) is an essential part of the game. And you show it yourself "earn gold, convert to gems", so basically you turn the way to work towards that in a gold-grind, affecting the game-play. You are not rewarded such items for killing a boss, but for gold, no matter how you get the gold. Or you can just buy them. So they lose any form of prestige.

 

For GW2 players who purely do PvP of WvW you could say skins are just a nice extra, but for those who do PvE it's an essential element that when touched, changes the game-play.

[NotASmurf.1725]

> @Goettel.4389 said:

> > @NotASmurf.1725 said:

> > > @Lilo.8230 said:

> >

> > > I'm just super happy with no subscription fee. I'll pay for anything as long as I don't have to pay to play to be honest.

> >

> > Honestly, what 's the logic behind that? Have you ever sat down to think about what you just said?

> >

> > You are okay with Anet exploiting its players through new methods of monetization through a more and more oppressive gemstore and you're willing to pay 100$+ for this happily because there is no sub fee?

> >

> > You do realize that you are probably spending 10 times more money on this game than if it had a sub fee, but end up getting 1/10th of the content of a P2P MMO?

> >

> It's really not that hard to understand: play for free, buy more content if you want it and spent some money on cosmetic items if you like.

> All of those are voluntary actions, so the word "exploitation" can't apply.

 

It **is** hard to understand. This guy says that because the game is F2P s/he literally buys every single new thing in the store. But at the same time having a P2P model is not fine, because you have to spend money to play? When in reality, you'll get more content and earn stuff ingame while paying _less_.

 

I can't decipher the logic behind it and I doubt there's any.

[PopeUrban.2578]

> @Devata.6589 said:

> > @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> > Quotes from this article on BBC news...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41997252

> >

> > > "Look at what Blizzard is doing with loot boxes in Overwatch - it has been a successful business for them.

> > >

> > > "But what they put in those loot boxes are cosmetic items. They don't affect gameplay. And you can also earn all the items through gameplay.

> > So in my world, the comparing of what has occurred in Star Wars Battlefront II and GW2 is like comparing apples to potatoes. All the mount skins _technically_ are available through gameplay - play the game, earn gold, convert to gems. One can hope that for those like myself not wanting to pay for mount skin loot boxes or pay a premium price for a single premium mount skin, other ways of acquiring said skins will over time be introduced into the game.

>

> There is a big difference indeed. But the biggest difference I see is that while in a game as Overwatch skins do not affect game-play. Other items (like in Battlefront II) would effect the game-play.

>

> So affecting the game-play is the important factor here.

>

> The thing is... in a game like GW2 (MMORPG's and some other type of games) skins do affect the game-play. Where in Overwatch having a nice skin is a nice extra, chasing skins in GW2 (MMORPG's) is an essential part of the game. And you show it yourself "earn gold, convert to gems", so basically you turn the way to work towards that in a gold-grind, affecting the game-play. You are not rewarded such items for killing a boss, but for gold, no matter how you get the gold. Or you can jsut buy them. So they lose any form of prestige.

>

> For GW2 players who purely do PvP of WvW you could say skins are just a nice extra, but for those who do PvE it's an essential element that when touched, changes the game-play.

 

This.

 

Also note the reason they allow you to exchange gold for gems is because the actual dollar value of those gems is now inflated due to the tax they charge on those transactions. Someone has to buy your gems, or buy the loot boxes that contain 1/10 of a skin.

 

If you're buying gem store items with gold, keep in mind you're giving anet the same amount of money while sending the message that you'd rather be an anet sponsored gold farmer rather than a player that earns rewards for playing the game in an equitable environment where everyone has the same chance at acquision, and by doing so you are directly contributing to the lack of skinse earnable ingame.

 

If you're trading gold for gems, you're actually providing anet with more money than if you just bought the gems, because a portion of the gems traded for that gold vanish in to a taxation black hole, making the actual dollar cost of those gems higher.

 

If you just like farming gold to get skins, this doesn't matter to you.

 

If you think you're punishing anet by grinding gold for gems in stead of buying them yourself, you're not, and if the gem store item you're getting this way isn't tradable, you're actually providing anet even more money.

[fizzypetal.7936]

> @Devata.6589 said:

> > @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> > Quotes from this article on BBC news...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41997252

> >

> > > "Look at what Blizzard is doing with loot boxes in Overwatch - it has been a successful business for them.

> > >

> > > "But what they put in those loot boxes are cosmetic items. They don't affect gameplay. And you can also earn all the items through gameplay.

> > So in my world, the comparing of what has occurred in Star Wars Battlefront II and GW2 is like comparing apples to potatoes. All the mount skins _technically_ are available through gameplay - play the game, earn gold, convert to gems. One can hope that for those like myself not wanting to pay for mount skin loot boxes or pay a premium price for a single premium mount skin, other ways of acquiring said skins will over time be introduced into the game.

>

> There is a big difference indeed. But the biggest difference I see is that while in a game as Overwatch skins do not affect game-play. Other items (like in Battlefront II) would effect the game-play.

>

> So affecting the game-play is the important factor here.

>

> The thing is... in a game like GW2 (MMORPG's and some other type of games) skins do affect the game-play. Where in Overwatch having a nice skin is a nice extra, chasing skins in GW2 (MMORPG's) is an essential part of the game. And you show it yourself "earn gold, convert to gems", so basically you turn the way to work towards that in a gold-grind, affecting the game-play. You are not rewarded such items for killing a boss, but for gold, no matter how you get the gold. Or you can jsut buy them. So they lose any form of prestige.

>

> For GW2 players who purely do PvP of WvW you could say skins are just a nice extra, but for those who do PvE it's an essential element that when touched, changes the game-play.

 

It boils down to perspective. From your perspective _"For GW2 players who purely do PvP of WvW you could say skins are just a nice extra, for those who do PvE it's an essential element that when touched, changes the game-play."_

 

From my perspective: I interpreted the statement _"We've heard concerns about potentially giving players unfair advantages."_ as the Luke Skywalker & Darth Vader characters had mechanics that would give players a technical advantage - e.g. more powerful, kill things faster, achieve rewards & goals quicker - making it a pay to win game. Whereas mount skins in GW2 don't give players any mechanics advantage so in my view is not pay to win.

 

I'm not dismissing that looks can be really important to players - one of the reasons I really like this game is that playing dress up with pixels makes the overall experience more fun. I'm still not persuaded though that there should be a comparison between how Star Wars handled player backlash & how GW2 should be responding to their player backlash. **In my view** the issues are very different - and that is the issues are mechanics vs cosmetics.

[sorudo.9054]

i rather buy a skin directly for 600 GEM then waste 400 GEM on a skin i will never ever use.....

[Astralporing.1957]

> @Sykper.6583 said:

> Yea...that whole tweet might be more believable if it wasn't from EA and instead some other company seeing the error of their ways.

>

> Popeurban has the right idea, EA can make a statement like that because they've already been shamed into making perhaps the most dirty Microtransaction scandals ever, and that they've already gotten their money from the fans. Taking a hit, letting the fire die down, and bringing it back later is their tactic, it's been like that for years.

 

True, they were likely only forced to this by the scale of the backlash, and they may try to introduce most of the thinsg people argued against later on, when everything camls down.

 

...and yet they still did a better job than Anet. Because they 've actually done _something_ (even if it may end up being only temporary).

 

 

[Djinn.9245]

> @JackOfAllGames.2409 said:

> Thanks for the response! For what it's worth, I kind of like the random but cheap model. My biggest concern was that more and more mounts would get added to that pool and my goal of getting around 6 of those skins would slowly get harder and harder if I don't dump a ton of money into it at once. Hearing that the pool will not be expanded helps a lot! I've already bought several mount skins and plan to get more in the future.

 

It is unfortunate that you already purchased some licenses in the pursuit of the 6 you want, because the numbers on getting what you want are not good. Here is an article with the detailed math on the RNG:

 

 

Which ultimately boils down to:

"If you want more than 3 specific skins, it is on average more cost efficient to just buy the 30 pack"

>

> The time for suggestions is probably done, but I'd like to see mounts come in sets kind of like some of the minis, but also rotate through the gem store individually at the higher standard price - hopefully making everyone happy. Also, please do not make 2000 gems the standard. That warforged mount skin looks awesome, but charging over $20 for a single skin is A LOT to ask.

 

Given that you agree with many that $20 / skin is too much, how much will you have to spend in the gamble box to get the 6 skins you want? They have removed the 30 skin deal for 9600 gems (320/skin) so now there is only the 10 packs at 3400 gems (340/skin). But there is really no point to purchasing a 10 pack since if you happen to get lucky you will end up with additional licenses you don't need. So it seems you are stuck buying them 1 by 1. I don't know how many you've already purchased, but how much cash are you willing to spend to get your 6 skins?

 

I'm not willing to purchase skins I don't want in order to get those I do. I'd rather spend my cash or gold on things I actually want. There was a story on Reddit from a player who only wanted a few certain skins. He purchased a few, then purchased a few more. Once he was in for $60 and still didn't have a single skin he actually wanted, he figured he should keep going because he was eventually guaranteed to get the skins he wanted. Then he came across the article I linked and got really mad - he realized he should have just purchased the 30 pack for 9600 gems because he already spent that much money and had like only 1 of the skins he wanted.

 

But IMO 9600 gems to get a few skins I want is a terrible deal. I don't care that I get a bunch of other skins I don't want. And of course now that deal is over anyway.

[Djinn.9245]

> @Goettel.4389 said:

> I've found this answer sufficient: _"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."_

>

> Personally, I didn't even check what I might get before gambling 2x 400 gems: got a sweet Raptor and a nice Skimmer (even though the difference with the vanilla one is not that big).

 

Sure, for people who simply don't care what they get a gamble box is great. I'm glad that you're happy with your purchase. But for those of us who do care, we want to be able to choose what specific skin we buy just like we can choose an outfit or a glider, etc.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @Wanze.8410 said:

> > @"Mike O Brien.4613" said:

> > Hi,

> >

> > **We made a commitment to you in March 2012 that we’d fund GW2 live development through non-pay-to-win microtransactions. We try different ideas, but we always hold true to that commitment.** We’ve been collecting and discussing your feedback on the Mount Adoption License, and today I’d like to acknowledge and respond to the concerns you’ve raised, and to share our perspective with you.

>

> I think alot of the negative feedback you received in the last couple of days is based on many of your customers not understanding this kind of business model and mixed financing. Greed and Money Grab were terms used commonly to describe your practice because they only see how much they think it costs to implement a new mount skin and how much profit you make of it.

>

> Its a vaild concern because obviously, your profit margins on these kinds of micro transactions are pretty high and it looks like an easy way to "print money".

>

> What most players dont consider, is that this profit margin basically pays for the running costs of developing new content, like LW, new raids, QoL features, which all have to be developed by different dev teams that dont generate alot of revenue because they are mostly delivered at no extra cost and cant be covered by box sales alone.

>

> Personally, I dont really care about mount skins, so I am greatful for any extra revenue you make through these microtransactions that funds my opportunity to play this game for free apart from the mandatory box sales.

>

> But I also like the community a whole lot because I have been a part of it for over 5 years and it the current kitten, it wasnt a nice community to be a part of, to be honest. So I also appreciate that you take the time to address these issues and are working on a better solution.

>

> I had some thoughts about mount skin monetisation that might be fair to the player base and might also generate enough revenue for you, including crowd-funding and a "Design a Mount" Contest to make sure that only mount skins that are popular will make it into the game.

>

> I posted it [on reddit](

). Feel free to take a look and I would appreciate some feedback, here or on reddit, either from you or someone of your gem store team to point out some things I might have missed regarding Anet´s point of view or things I didnt consider.

>

 

You know what a fallacy is?

That's your first paragraph. What you're saying is valid IF AND ONLY IF, mounts were the only thing on sale at the gemstore. But they aren't and they don't exist in a vacuum, nor is the gemstore THE ONLY form of funding they have.

Also, them saying that gemstore funds living world, ahaha.

You know where PoF would have been if it wasn't for the good-will generated from the Living Story? NOWHERE, the game would have ended with HoT being the fiasco it was.

The game needs living world to keep players engaged because the AAA priced expansions are simply not even close. Living world episodes are like the DLC that was cut off the main product to keep it going for longer.

A lot of people have already "finished" PoF and it's not even 2 months since launch. I've had cheaper expansions last me longer in single player games. Heck i've had cheaper games last me longer than this expansion.

So while it's true that the gemstore is a serious income source for Arena Net. Don't make it seem like their struggling and that people are ungrateful. HoT was sold at a price that is enough for complete AAA titles on PC. Single purchase, and it was supplemented with Gemstore. PoF was a little cheaper, true, but it will still be suplemented with Gemstore. They don't need to be greedy like that, not when they're selling expansions at full price.

If they're not selling ENOUGH expansions, then that's their problem, isn't it? And you know what doesn't help that problem?

BEING PERCEIVED AS GREEDY MONEY GRUBBERS! It might even be a honest mistake, and a case of player perception!

But perception becomes reality, and for a game that depends on its reputation and word of mouth to get sales, being perceived as part of the toxic game developer group, is BAD.

And it was brought in by themselves. Even if it was an overreaction (it wasn't), even if it was unwarranted (again, nope), the community (hence the people that give them the money the need to fund that living world) didn't like it. And GW2 isn't really growing. Every player lost, every chink on their reputation is made worse by the fact the game is already 5 years old. They can't afford bad press, and they not only got it but are so blind to it that they don't do anything about it.

 

So, sure they might have made a lot of money in the short term, but i wonder how shorter the game's life span became as the cost of that decision?

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @NotASmurf.1725 said:

>

> You do realize that you are probably spending 10 times more money on this game than if it had a sub fee, but end up getting 1/10th of the content of a P2P MMO?

 

While I'm not disputing the rest of the post, I can't help but laugh at "1/10th the content." P2P MMO's are the biggest rip-off in gaming. Give me GW2's optional store any day of the week.

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> So just for future reference, [this](

) is how you handle it when you have a massive microtransactions SNAFU.

 

They already did that. The non-response at the top of this thread is the same as the one in that tweet. Read it.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> So in my world, the comparing of what has occurred in Star Wars Battlefront II and GW2 is like comparing apples to potatoes.

 

People that make the argument "loot boxes in game X are bad because they are pay to win, loot boxes in GW2 are ok because they're *just cosmetics.* . ." don't really *get* GW2 at all.

 

It may be true in *those* games that P2W matters and cosmetics don't, but those games are not GW2.

 

>From my perspective: I interpreted the statement "We've heard concerns about potentially giving players unfair advantages." as the Luke Skywalker & Darth Vader characters had mechanics that would give players a technical advantage - e.g. more powerful, kill things faster, achieve rewards & goals quicker - making it a pay to win game. Whereas mount skins in GW2 don't give players any mechanics advantage so in my view is not pay to win.

 

But again, what mattered there was not the *facts* of the situation, it was how the BFII players *felt* about those facts. The BFII players cared about P2W, and so EA reacted to that. If the BFII players hadn't cared then EA would have had no reason to react. Different communities care about different things in different measures, and none of them are "Wrong" for doing so.

 

Also, it's worth pointing out that the big explosion on all of this was that it took too long to unlock Darth Vader, which was a purely cosmetic issue, since he's intended to play equivalently to Darth Maul and should provide a minimal advantage at most. In GW2 terms it would be like if we could get a Raptor for free, but could only get the Jackal (without access to sand portals) via microtransactions. Maybe slightly better in some cases, but not enough to get worked up about, and in many cases worse.

 

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > So just for future reference, [this](

) is how you handle it when you have a massive microtransactions SNAFU.

>

> They already did that. The non-response at the top of this thread is the same as the one in that tweet. Read it.

 

EA actually SHUT DOWN their microtransactions until they could figure out a better way to do things. ANet left their loot boxes up and running.

[NotASmurf.1725]

> @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

> > @NotASmurf.1725 said:

> >

> > You do realize that you are probably spending 10 times more money on this game than if it had a sub fee, but end up getting 1/10th of the content of a P2P MMO?

>

> While I'm not disputing the rest of the post, I can't help but laugh at "1/10th the content." P2P MMO's are the biggest rip-off in gaming. Give me GW2's optional store any day of the week.

 

WoW released 10+ raid wings in a little more than a year with more coming later this month, meanwhile GW2 released 1 raid wing during that time.

 

The next WoW expansion is said to start with 10 new dungeons, Anet couldn't even deliver a fractal for PoF.

 

These are facts, I don't know what's so funny about it.

[fizzypetal.7936]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> > So in my world, the comparing of what has occurred in Star Wars Battlefront II and GW2 is like comparing apples to potatoes.

>

> People that make the argument "loot boxes in game X are bad because they are pay to win, loot boxes in GW2 are ok because they're *just cosmetics.* . ." don't really *get* GW2 at all.

>

> It may be true in *those* games that P2W matters and cosmetics don't, but those games are not GW2.

>

> >From my perspective: I interpreted the statement "We've heard concerns about potentially giving players unfair advantages." as the Luke Skywalker & Darth Vader characters had mechanics that would give players a technical advantage - e.g. more powerful, kill things faster, achieve rewards & goals quicker - making it a pay to win game. Whereas mount skins in GW2 don't give players any mechanics advantage so in my view is not pay to win.

>

> But again, what mattered there was not the *facts* of the situation, it was how the BFII players *felt* about those facts. The BFII players cared about P2W, and so EA reacted to that. If the BFII players hadn't cared then EA would have had no reason to react. Different communities care about different things in different measures, and none of them are "Wrong" for doing so.

>

> Also, it's worth pointing out that the big explosion on all of this was that it took too long to unlock Darth Vader, which was a purely cosmetic issue, since he's intended to play equivalently to Darth Maul and should provide a minimal advantage at most. In GW2 terms it would be like if we could get a Raptor for free, but could only get the Jackal (without access to sand portals) via microtransactions. Maybe slightly better in some cases, but not enough to get worked up about, and in many cases worse.

>

>

 

You're taking my quotes out of context to bolster your argument and to make it look as though I'm saying something I'm not. That is so not cool.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> > > So in my world, the comparing of what has occurred in Star Wars Battlefront II and GW2 is like comparing apples to potatoes.

> >

> > People that make the argument "loot boxes in game X are bad because they are pay to win, loot boxes in GW2 are ok because they're *just cosmetics.* . ." don't really *get* GW2 at all.

> >

> > It may be true in *those* games that P2W matters and cosmetics don't, but those games are not GW2.

> >

> > >From my perspective: I interpreted the statement "We've heard concerns about potentially giving players unfair advantages." as the Luke Skywalker & Darth Vader characters had mechanics that would give players a technical advantage - e.g. more powerful, kill things faster, achieve rewards & goals quicker - making it a pay to win game. Whereas mount skins in GW2 don't give players any mechanics advantage so in my view is not pay to win.

> >

> > But again, what mattered there was not the *facts* of the situation, it was how the BFII players *felt* about those facts. The BFII players cared about P2W, and so EA reacted to that. If the BFII players hadn't cared then EA would have had no reason to react. Different communities care about different things in different measures, and none of them are "Wrong" for doing so.

> >

> > Also, it's worth pointing out that the big explosion on all of this was that it took too long to unlock Darth Vader, which was a purely cosmetic issue, since he's intended to play equivalently to Darth Maul and should provide a minimal advantage at most. In GW2 terms it would be like if we could get a Raptor for free, but could only get the Jackal (without access to sand portals) via microtransactions. Maybe slightly better in some cases, but not enough to get worked up about, and in many cases worse.

> >

> >

>

> You're taking my quotes out of context to bolster your argument and to make it look as though I'm saying something I'm not. That is so not cool.

 

Ok. Explain how I'm wrong then?

[fizzypetal.7936]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> > > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > > @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> > > > So in my world, the comparing of what has occurred in Star Wars Battlefront II and GW2 is like comparing apples to potatoes.

> > >

> > > People that make the argument "loot boxes in game X are bad because they are pay to win, loot boxes in GW2 are ok because they're *just cosmetics.* . ." don't really *get* GW2 at all.

> > >

> > > It may be true in *those* games that P2W matters and cosmetics don't, but those games are not GW2.

> > >

> > > >From my perspective: I interpreted the statement "We've heard concerns about potentially giving players unfair advantages." as the Luke Skywalker & Darth Vader characters had mechanics that would give players a technical advantage - e.g. more powerful, kill things faster, achieve rewards & goals quicker - making it a pay to win game. Whereas mount skins in GW2 don't give players any mechanics advantage so in my view is not pay to win.

> > >

> > > But again, what mattered there was not the *facts* of the situation, it was how the BFII players *felt* about those facts. The BFII players cared about P2W, and so EA reacted to that. If the BFII players hadn't cared then EA would have had no reason to react. Different communities care about different things in different measures, and none of them are "Wrong" for doing so.

> > >

> > > Also, it's worth pointing out that the big explosion on all of this was that it took too long to unlock Darth Vader, which was a purely cosmetic issue, since he's intended to play equivalently to Darth Maul and should provide a minimal advantage at most. In GW2 terms it would be like if we could get a Raptor for free, but could only get the Jackal (without access to sand portals) via microtransactions. Maybe slightly better in some cases, but not enough to get worked up about, and in many cases worse.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > You're taking my quotes out of context to bolster your argument and to make it look as though I'm saying something I'm not. That is so not cool.

>

> Ok. Explain how I'm wrong then?

 

From where I sit it looks like you're quoting specific sentences from my post and bending them to fit your narrative. I have my perspective, you have yours. They do not have to be the same and there do not have to be winners or losers. To manipulate what someone else has said by taking it out of context and answer a partial statement of mine with an insult and in a way that implies I said something I didn't..well that is how you're wrong. I'm done here.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @NotASmurf.1725 said:

> > @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

> > > @NotASmurf.1725 said:

> > >

> > > You do realize that you are probably spending 10 times more money on this game than if it had a sub fee, but end up getting 1/10th of the content of a P2P MMO?

> >

> > While I'm not disputing the rest of the post, I can't help but laugh at "1/10th the content." P2P MMO's are the biggest rip-off in gaming. Give me GW2's optional store any day of the week.

>

> WoW released 10+ raid wings in a little more than a year with more coming later this month, meanwhile GW2 released 1 raid wing during that time.

>

> The next WoW expansion is said to start with 10 new dungeons, Anet couldn't even deliver a fractal for PoF.

>

> These are facts, I don't know what's so funny about it.

 

I once did dungeons and raids in WoW. I saw the treadmill for what it was. It was not fun, so I stopped. At that point, my experience of WoW was, "Pay premium dollar for an expansion with some leveling content, but built around a crappy gear treadmill that ends in an everlasting instanced content cycle I would not participate in. Meanwhile, pay to rent the game month to month, and wait two years for the next Xpac. That's why I'm laughing.

 

See, your facts are immaterial to me, or anyone who does not raid. At least here, I'm not renting the game to fund content exclusively for other people.