A Message About the Mount Adoption License

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> > Oh, so I can get mount skin licenses by playing the game now? You're still avoiding the topic for some reason.

>

> Play the game -> get gold -> buy gems -> buy license? Like you know any other item on the gem store?

 

For the last time, the currency exchange only exists for the purpose of selling gold. It does not count as "in-game" because you get crap for monetary drops.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> The pack we got today in gemstore has been created and datamined around mountgate episode so it was already set in stone.

Nope. they could have held back on it and changed it into some non-rng method. While in the case of adoption licenses they could try to defend themselves with "we can't change anything, because people have already bought some", in this case there was no such problem at all preventing them from acting. It's just one more proof that they don't really "understand players' concern" (or don't _care_ about them). And that they do not consider the lootbox system to be something wrong, and DO plan on using it still. Which, obviously, makes the whole MO's post completely empty, devoid of any meaning.

 

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

> Let me ask you a question, if they didn't allow you to use cash to buy the license, but instead require you to pay gold for it, but use the exact same system as we have now. Would you be happy with it?

Yes, that would be a way to fix the problem. The main form of contention was always RNG use for _gemshop-bought goods_. Depending on price i might not end too happy about it, but i wouldn't be so _against_ it either. Remember, that there's no such big outrage against RNG in mob drops and other in-game rewards. It's only when RL cash gets involved that it becomes a serious problem.

 

There are many ways Anet might have decided to mitigate the mess they've made. What they've decided on, however, was continuing as if nothing has happened, feeling that their system was so good that it didn't need any adjustments at all. And _that_ is what makes their decison worse than EA's in this case.

[JanHermann.2436]

Someone (a few of them here) has already said this and I'd like to put my voice to it:

Why don't they put those skins in groupings (i.e "Raptor" category where you get only one of those raptor skins) for, say 600 gems per pop and individual skins for 800 gems?

That way they still suck the gold out of the economy and earn money and players have a definite option for whatever they want to purchase.

Anet saves face (a bit) and players are happy, what would be wrong with that?

 

Regards.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @Astralporing.1957 said:

> > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > The pack we got today in gemstore has been created and datamined around mountgate episode so it was already set in stone.

> Nope. they could have held back on it and changed it into some non-rng method. While in the case of adoption licenses they could try to defend themselves with "we can't change anything, because people have already bought some", in this case there was no such problem at all preventing them from acting. It's just one more proof that they don't really "understand players' concern" (or don't _care_ about them). And that they do not consider the lootbox system to be something wrong, and DO plan on using it still. Which, obviously, makes the whole MO's post completely empty, devoid of any meaning.

>

> > @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > Let me ask you a question, if they didn't allow you to use cash to buy the license, but instead require you to pay gold for it, but use the exact same system as we have now. Would you be happy with it?

> Yes, that would be a way to fix the problem. The main form of contention was always RNG use for _gemshop-bought goods_. Depending on price i might not end too happy about it, but i wouldn't be so _against_ it either. Remember, that there's no such big outrage against RNG in mob drops and other in-game rewards. It's only when RL cash gets involved that it becomes a serious problem.

>

> There are many ways Anet might have decided to mitigate the mess they've made. What they've decided on, however, was continuing as if nothing has happened, feeling that their system was so good that it didn't need any adjustments at all. And _that_ is what makes their decison worse than EA's in this case.

 

So in conclusion if moutngate teach us anything it's - PR drama is irrelevant, stop buying gems altogether so anet starts to listen. I'm not buying gems since HoT and I'm happy with it.

[Aerinndis.2730]

> @JanHermann.2436 said:

> Someone (a few of them here) has already said this and I'd like to put my voice to it:

> Why don't they put those skins in groupings (i.e "Raptor" category where you get only one of those raptor skins) for, say 600 gems per pop and individual skins for 800 gems?

> That way they still suck the gold out of the economy and earn money and players have a definite option for whatever they want to purchase.

> Anet saves face (a bit) and players are happy, what would be wrong with that?

>

> Regards.

 

I like this idea too, putting each type of skin in their own groupings and letting folk buy them that way. But I wished they had done something different overall.

 

It would have been neat to have animals with these various skins (or call them different breeds) out there that you run across in the open world and you would get a hint that you had to find a particular breeder who is producing these animals. Once you found that person and let them know you were interested in that particular 'breed' they would have you accomplish some things for them in order to reserve an animal out of a litter. I would have no problem with doing things say over a week or two for a breeder so that he would let me buy that skin directly. (or give a voucher to take to a Black Lion Trader that would enable me to purchase the skin from the gem store) It would be a lot more fun and be more consistent with the world instead of blam! here are a bunch of flashy skins you can have this instant that have no relation to the story or Tyria. It would give even the plainer skins some meaning and and context and I think folk would find this a great incentive to collect all the skins.

[squashedsquirrel.5408]

I am not at all satisfied with this response. You say you should have anticipated the backlash because of the negative light lootboxes have been put in recently, and rightly so; what you don't admit though is that the mechanic is by nature predatory, especially when the contents of said box are attainable no other way. It appears that you are sad you got caught, and not that you implemented a crappy system.

 

> @"Mike O Brien.4613" said:

> * We released mount skins with three different purchase models, but with the majority of skins released so far through the Adoption License. It’s easy to perceive this as intentionally channeling you toward randomization.

 

No kidding, since from a business perspective that is _exactly_ what the intent of the system is. It is neither fun, rewarding, OR a "discount" on skins. The benefits you listed only benefit YOU as a company, and not a single player. Think about it. Who wants a brand-new, unique mount skin for a mount they don't like? Or perhaps, and this sounds crazy, someone might not LIKE that skin no matter how brand-new and unique you say it is? Then it's wasted money, and they feed right into the remaining benefits you list for your business, needing to purchase MORE and MORE hoping that THIS time they'll get that one they like for the mount they use.

 

We don't play this game for free. We all pay an entry fee, and again for every expansion. If that's not enough to fund development, keep servers running, and make a fair profit without microtransactions then it's time to abandon the entry fee and live on microtransactions alone. If your game can't survive on that, then the people have spoken; plenty of free-to-play games are doing just fine on microtransactions. Having an entry fee and then microtransactions is just plain greedy.

 

edit:

> @"Mike O Brien.4613" said:

 

> * You’ve requested variety, and this is a way to support variety. Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins. Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin.

This actually made me laugh a little. Your 'price per skin' means nothing when the skin isn't actually available for purchase. Is it worth the same or not? How does making it random allow you to justify creating the variety, except that it's a predatory way to make players end up paying MORE for a certain skin through purchasing more chances to get their skin? I'm completely insulted.

[Fire X.5184]

Well things might be changing for the better in loot box practices. There is a youtuber named YongYea and in his video (Belgium & Hawaii Say EA's Loot Boxes ARE Gambling and Want Them Banned/Regulated) show's some promising things.

[Turial.1293]

Ah yes, more random choice skins added today.... Well played Anet, this is gonna diffuse the situation entirely and go over really well with everyone. There is currently plenty of things I want to buy in the gemstore but it won't be any RNG items, that is for damn sure, but until mountgate has been given a serious overhaul and they stop treating players like cash cows then they won't be seeing a penny from me.

[Fire X.5184]

> @Turial.1293 said:

> Ah yes, more random choice skins added today.... Well played Anet, this is gonna diffuse the situation entirely and go over really well with everyone. There is currently plenty of things I want to buy in the gemstore but it won't be any RNG items, that is for kitten sure, but until mountgate has been given a serious overhaul and they stop treating players like cash cows then they won't be seeing a penny from me.

 

They added more random skins? I don't seen anything that is random skins. Can you elaborate?

[Shaaba.5672]

In the bundle, you can pick a type of weapon (dagger, sword, staff). Then you get a random BL skin for that weapon type.

[Fire X.5184]

> @Shaaba.5672 said:

> In the bundle, you can pick a type of weapon (dagger, sword, staff). Then you get a random BL skin for that weapon type.

 

So it's like the mount skin loot box but this time for weapons?

[kharmin.7683]

> @Aerinndis.2730 said:

> It would have been neat to have animals with these various skins (or call them different breeds) out there that you run across in the open world and you would get a hint that you had to find a particular breeder who is producing these animals. Once you found that person and let them know you were interested in that particular 'breed' they would have you accomplish some things for them in order to reserve an animal out of a litter. I would have no problem with doing things say over a week or two for a breeder so that he would let me buy that skin directly. (or give a voucher to take to a Black Lion Trader that would enable me to purchase the skin from the gem store) It would be a lot more fun and be more consistent with the world instead of blam! here are a bunch of flashy skins you can have this instant that have no relation to the story or Tyria. It would give even the plainer skins some meaning and and context and I think folk would find this a great incentive to collect all the skins.

 

This idea would dis-incentivize people from spending cash for gems to get the skins, which I believe was Anet's entire focus. Sure, skins could have been locked behind quests or tasks, but then no one would have been reaching for their wallets to get them.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"Fire X.5184" said:

> > @Shaaba.5672 said:

> > In the bundle, you can pick a type of weapon (dagger, sword, staff). Then you get a random BL skin for that weapon type.

>

> So it's like the mount skin loot box but this time for weapons?

 

Yes, and no. I have seen nothing to say there is a system that ensures you won't get the same skin twice -- and the random box is part of a bundle which costs 3000 gems.

[Elric Of Melnibone.4781]

A lot of the skins are hardly different from the base skin and probably took very little work. It's like they just made a bunch of lame ones at low cost to throw in so they could boost their revenues by using RNG. They know many people gotta have that special skin and will blow tons of extra coin to get it. Sounds like exploitation to me.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"Elric Of Melnibone.4781" said:

> A lot of the skins are hardly different from the base skin and probably took very little work. It's like they just made a bunch of lame ones at low cost to throw in so they could boost their revenues by using RNG.

 

Or, they designed multiple looks around the same frame when making the base mount skins in the first place, then decided to get some revenue out of them and added dye channels.

 

 

[Magnus Godrik.5841]

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> > @"Magnus Godrik.5841" said:

> > > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > > > @Wildfang.3271 said:

> > > > > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > > > > > @Devildoc.6721 said:

> > > > > > > @StaggerLee.6397 said:

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

> > > > > >

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

> > > > >

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

> > > >

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

> > > > A. Blizzard is altruistic?

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

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

> > > >

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

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

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

> > >

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

> > >

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

> > >

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

> > > 2000 gems: Reforged Warhound (single Jackal skin)

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

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

> > >

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

> >

> > You have the choice to use real world cash or grind in game gold and convert. A lot of mmo don't give you that option at all.

>

> I'm talking about getting mounts in-game vs. high-priced vs. gambling. Those are all the choices. In GW2 we have very few choices that are not gambling:

> -stick with basic mounts

> -overpriced mounts (only 1)

 

Well actually you are getting them in game if you grind gold.

[Turial.1293]

> @"Magnus Godrik.5841" said:

> Well actually you are getting them in game if you grind gold.

You know that would be helpful, just grind 120g and convert to gems then choose the mount... Hang on, I see the problem, it's not the price, it's the RNG of it all. 120g can easily become 3000g just for this 'current' batch of mount skins. Do you think that is good value for money? Just because you can convert gold to gems does not make it a valid way of getting said skins because of the RNG.

[Magnus Godrik.5841]

> @Turial.1293 said:

> > @"Magnus Godrik.5841" said:

> > Well actually you are getting them in game if you grind gold.

> You know that would be helpful, just grind 120g and convert to gems then choose the mount... Hang on, I see the problem, it's not the price, it's the RNG of it all. 120g can easily become 3000g just for this 'current' batch of mount skins. Do you think that is good value for money? Just because you can convert gold to gems does not make it a valid way of getting said skins because of the RNG.

 

Everything in this game that is cool is rng. From the original precursor's to those sexy infusions. So yeah I feel it is a good value.

[sprhavkdogi.9408]

> @"Magnus Godrik.5841" said:

> Everything in this game that is cool is rng. From the original precursor's to those sexy infusions. So yeah I feel it is a good value.

 

but the precursors aren't rng anymore, and even before that last time I checked I could buy the one **I want** off the trading post, can't do that with mount skins

[QueenOfFire.7123]

Why is everybody freaking out for some skins , when two months ago you didn't even have mounts. Just be grateful for the things you have and remember to have fun. The whole problem is based on vanity and not on real meaningfull content. So when I see a coment like "I seriously think of quiting the game, because of this" i really pity the fool.

[Magnus Godrik.5841]

> @sprhavkdogi.9408 said:

> > @"Magnus Godrik.5841" said:

> > Everything in this game that is cool is rng. From the original precursor's to those sexy infusions. So yeah I feel it is a good value.

>

> but the precursors aren't rng anymore, and even before that last time I checked I could buy the one **I want** off the trading post, can't do that with mount skins

 

So your saying you can grind gold and buy it. That's my point in all this.

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @"Magnus Godrik.5841" said:

> > @Turial.1293 said:

> > > @"Magnus Godrik.5841" said:

> > > Well actually you are getting them in game if you grind gold.

> > You know that would be helpful, just grind 120g and convert to gems then choose the mount... Hang on, I see the problem, it's not the price, it's the RNG of it all. 120g can easily become 3000g just for this 'current' batch of mount skins. Do you think that is good value for money? Just because you can convert gold to gems does not make it a valid way of getting said skins because of the RNG.

>

> Everything in this game that is cool is rng. From the original precursor's to those sexy infusions. So yeah I feel it is a good value.

 

Yes, but it doesn't all involve real money. The only way to get a mount skin other than the base single-channel one is to involve cash in some way. (Those gems you traded your ground gold for were bought with a credit card at some point.)

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @QueenOfFire.7123 said:

> Why is everybody freaking out for some skins , when two months ago you didn't even have mounts. Just be grateful for the things you have and remember to have fun. The whole problem is based on vanity and not on real meaningfull content. So when I see a coment like "I seriously think of quiting the game, because of this" i really pity the fool.

 

Please at least read some of the thread. Your "question" has been answered repeatedly.

[ReaverKane.7598]

Well, now that Belgium is ruling this kind of practice as Gambling there will likely soon be a EU-wide push to remove this kind of content from games, or else they'll require a gambling license to be sold.

And do note, it says they want to remove in-game purchases altogether where the player **doesn't know exactly** what he's purchasing, so most likely stuff like Black Lion chests and definitely dye kits will apply.

Apparently the state of Hawaii in the US has also taken steps against these practices. So now we'll have to see how Arena Net reacts. Now it's not just the players that are against these practices, its also the law.

[XDeathShadowX.2619]

I'm late to the conversation since I didn't know Anet posted on this. The issues isn't about the odds being too low, it's that there are odds at all. To be honest it comes off as trying to hide less popular skins behind more interesting ones. Some of the skins only look like minor pattern changes where as others are really unique, but by randomizing them you can make people pay for ones they wouldn't normally buy. For example the only one I really want is the wolf jackal skin, if I had the worst possible luck I'd have to get all 30 of them to get the one I'm interested in. The game has had randomness before and I've always avoided it like the plague when I could. I refuse to buy black lion keys and only use the free ones you get occationally. I don't buy dye packs because there's a chance they'll give you a dye from the core set that's been there since launch instead of one of the unique ones you're after. I even hate the mystic clover recipe only having a 33% success rate. Also the reassurance that "You can't get the same skin twice" isn't innovative at all, you don't let us trade/sell the skin unlocks. If you did allow duplicate rolls the fallout would be so much worse because it'd be a literal waste of money, it doesn't sound like customer consideration it sounds like self-preservation. Really hope the exploitative tactics aren't a design choice going forward, nobody likes to pay for something and not getting what they wanted.