Were you satisfied with ArenaNet's answer about the Mount Adoption Licenses?

[Kapax.3801]

Just need to say that people with high purchasing power play gw 2 :'(

By the way, what is the difference between a microtransaction and a regular transaction? :/

[Ashen.2907]

> @Kapax.3801 said:

> Just need to say that people with high purchasing power play gw 2 :'(

> By the way, what is the difference between a microtransaction and a regular transaction? :/

 

IMO, the term microtransaction ceases to be applicable when the price tag is comparable to, or nearly so, the cost of a game.

[FrizzFreston.5290]

I pretty much expected this reaction, and with gem conversion in mind these mounts could also be bought entirely free, albeit it for lots of gold.

 

The room for improvement lies mostly within the voicing of understanding the playerbase. It's always deflecting towards other sources where they made their missteps.

People misunderstood our intentions, the media are putting lootboxes/grabbags in a bad light. Sure, that is happening. But that's not the root problem.

RNG is the rootproblem, regardless of intentions. Be very careful what you put behind RNG and at what price. And provide options.

 

Regardless of what is happening, at no point in time should the majority of customization be through RNG.

 

 

 

[aliciamarianne.1725]

It was a reply that acknowleged the issue without actually taking it into consideration and admitting fault.

It's: yeah, we understand you're angry, but deal with it.

I know the GW2 team has listened to complaints in the past and I don't know if it makes me even angrier that they aren't now. This is a major issue still, as this very vote shows.

[Boingo.5264]

Their statement said that they stand behind the work done on these mount skins. What could be a better expression of that pride and confidence than to sell all of these skins individually?

[SimBilly.8047]

> @Ashen.2907 said:

> For the most part yes.

>

> Monetization of mounts was among the most common arguments for adding them to the game. This is a particularly effective monetization technique.

>

> I dont like gambling oriented systems, but having full functionality require no such system, tying only cosmetics to it, is better than many alternatives. This is especially the case as so many arguing against the rng aspect seem set on lowballing the price for individual purchase.

 

^ This ^

I probably won't be buying any mount skins under this current system, but I may in the future if things change. I had no issues with MO's answer. I thought it was very well presented.

[Vayne.8563]

> @"Olterin Fire.5960" said:

> > @Hevoskuuri.3891 said:

> > Yeah, I'm happy. They made a mistake with the lootbox system, and a promise not to implement a system like that again in the future is good enough for me.

>

> It was a carefully-crafted PR response. I recommend reading it again, very carefully, and going over it with a fine tooth comb. Weigh every word of it. Get rid of potential personal bias. I suspect that if you do that, you will find that it does not, in fact, promise to not implement such a system again in the future.

 

People said this about what Anet said about not adding another tier of gear after ascended. You can word something and still have no intention of doing it. You're making an assumption that leaving a loophole means you intend to use it. I leave loopholes all the time when I talk and almost never use them, but it's better to be safe than sorry. I believe the intent of what was being said is definitely the intent for now. A couple of years down the road, no one can know what the situation will be.

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @RoseofGilead.8907 said:

> I don't care for the RNG boxes or RNG in the mount adoption thingies, and I don't plan to buy gems with real money to get them. However, I am so tired of a half dozen new rant threads popping up every day (at least most are being merged into the overall thread).

 

Then don't read the mount threads? They don't auto-open.

[notebene.3190]

The choices are such that what you pick reflects whether you look at this as a 'glass half full' or 'glass half empty' situation. Two people could pick what would seem like very different answers, and have the exact same reasoning behind their answer. Just, an observation. :)

 

I think the answer was good, insofar as they heard us yelling, and are saying they won't do that again.

 

It's a bummer, because there are 2-3 skins in there that I kinda wouldn't mind having, but I'll never get, because they don't want to "invalidate the investment players have made". I'm trying to unpack exactly what that means. Does it mean the pack has investment value to people with a lot of disposable income, compared to people that don't, and if you were to refund their money, they have lost a "I have more disposable income than you" investment? They could refund everyone's money, and start over again with the presentation, couldn't they? Is that not physically possible? It just seemed like a weird, buried throw away line that flew by, rather than standing out as one of their bullet points. I was curious.

[Vayne.8563]

> @sprhavkdogi.9408 said:

> The issue I take with the response is that the "justifications" for why they did it are very weak at best, missed one of our biggest questions (why are no skins in game), and the answer itself seems dishonest and just a quick attempt to try to quell us. The only other game I actively spend money on these days is Fire Emblem Heroes, which on almost every occasion has listened to requests from the player base, admitted mistakes (even ones players didn't know about), and given players small compensations in return. FE Heroes is an rng based gacha game, yet I can tell they care a lot about the player base and want us to be happy as we play their game. In the past, I would say without a doubt Anet is the same way, but with this paltry response, I now have difficulty justifying that for the entire company. I will not be satisfied with a "we know better than you about what you actually want, so shut up and accept this". A lot of the other points I disagree with MO on have been made by others so I can't think of more to add.

 

Because that question is pointless. It took more than a year after HoT launched for a HOT glider skin to get into the game, so why should mount skins be any different? If you had the expectation they would be in the game, that's on you.

[Turin.6921]

I would prefer an outright commitment that this would be the last time they would add mount skins that way. I would also like a direct answer about the current mount skins. MO said that they would not make any changes that would invalidate current purchases (which makes sense) but he left it very vague. Will they add an additional option to buy them without RNG or they will not make any alteration whatsoever? With such issues vagueness does not really help. But still its seem that they did not ignore the backlash and i trust that next bundle will be a least a bit less exploitative than this to avoid a similar situation.

[Doctor Hide.6345]

I wish it could have been better in which they changed the current RNG system, but I understand why they don't want too with the current work and legal matters that they have to go through to fix it. I am just happy they said the next batch won't have the RNG tied too it, so it is up to us to keep them to their word of no RNG from here on out. So overall I am so so about it. I'll take the small victories where I can in the fight against the lootbox craze.

[Colly.4073]

I am not satisfied with the answer and will not be putting anymore of my money into the gem store, It just goes to show the direction this game is heading in.

[FrozenStarRo.7240]

I appreciate they offered a response rather than avoid it and hope we'd forget about it in a couple weeks. I take some comfort in knowing they will carefully consider any similar packages in the future before releasing them, but on the other hand, I'm not pleased with having premium 2k single mount skins and forced bundles as the only alternatives to it.

 

I like and want variety! I want to be able to pick and choose how each mount looks for myself, and the Mount License Adoption is what I deem as fair in terms of pricing for single mount skins, but it's not okay for a roll of a dice to determine what I get.

 

Alas I'm not investing in any of these skins for the time being, they're riddled with bugs currently anyways.

[Egrimm Van Horstmann.7921]

Would have been nice for them to remove the RNG from the skins, but what really irked me was the forged mount skin cost. Seriously 2000 gems for **one skin**. That's more than any other skin in the game by more than twice cost. According to their answer this is still OK, just means more gem stuff I won't support.

[Dropdown.7460]

*This is long, but it will be the only response I leave.*

 

# The Gem Store Conundrum

 

 

This is about more than Mount Skins and Black Lion Chests. As it stands currently, Guild Wars 2 "end game progression" *is* the gem store. Outside of raids, what do people focus on? *Legendary armor*? Aside from the raiding set, it doesn't look legendary. *Legendary weapons*? You can buy them on the TP (set 2 requires some leg work, but nothing absurdly difficult, just more gold). What if Frodo went to the Market and simply bought Sting and his Elven Chainmail there? I bet Lord of the Rings would have felt less epic. *Skins*? Gotta buy those now, as in-game choices are becoming slimmer. *Mount skins*? Only the base; can't earn **any** skins in-game **forcing** us to buy them on the Gem Store.

 

Was this the intention? To make players work toward being able to afford things in the gem store? What is there left to do when "winning" the game is pulling out your credit card?

 

# The "Mobile" Game Industry

 

 

This has become a bigger issue over time and the Mount Skin "license" was the tipping point. The game industry is [projected to make $25b in revenue in 2017 - and that's just in the US](https://newzoo.com/insights/rankings/top-100-countries-by-game-revenues/). Looking at the top 25 publishers in 2017, [NCSoft made the list at #23](https://newzoo.com/insights/rankings/top-25-companies-game-revenues/). The Gem Store is becoming more prominent and giving off a mobile free-to-play vibe as times goes on. It's no surprise given that [mobile games grossed over $41b in 2016](https://venturebeat.com/2016/12/21/worldwide-game-industry-hits-91-billion-in-revenues-in-2016-with-mobile-the-clear-leader/). What's a poor publisher to do? May as well act savvy and jump on that groovy gravy train.

 

If this is the direction Guild Wars 2 is headed, I want no part of it. I don't play mobile games for a reason and I certainly don't want to see the Guild Wars franchise become a mobile-like game (mobile-lite? I hope I didn't just invent a new term...). As players, we don't get to see your intent, only the implementation. What we saw was obvious: lootbox reveal during a time when lootboxes are all over the media and the big publisher craze. I get it, I really do -- companies want to make money, lots and lots of money, for their investors. Should this always be done at the expense of the customer? I already know what the US courts think.

 

# Base Content

 

 

What upsets me about these new skins is it *feels* like were given the worst, stripped down version of mounts and (other items) in-game. It *feels* like your PoF customers don't deserve these skins without spending the extra money. Being realistic, how many people in-game (%) can actually afford the 30-license set with in-game gold (not converted from gems) only? Players can't even earn a single other skin in-game.

 

# It's Just Cosmetic

 

 

It's also in-game content that is *vastly superior in quality* than what we can find in game, with more customization options - exactly what players *want*. Is something vastly superior that's highly desired by every single player something that can be considered "alternative"? One of the main staples of RPGs is creating and equipping appropriate armor/fashion for their character. You don't even see your character in Skyrim or Fallout 4 and yet it's important to wear cool things.

 

# Just Business

 

 

What you told players is this:

*We spent a good deal of time creating skins for these mounts and decided to give you the most basic, boring versions that can be found, earned, or otherwise procured in game. You'll have to pay for the "Premium" models. Oh, and if you want them all (or the assurance you'll get the one you want), be prepared to spend $140 (Stables + Forged Jackal).*

 

The Gem Store has taken over the game. Does Anet / NCSoft really think they'll have better player retention with this model? When the bubble bursts, or when the "whales" and "dolphins" (are we really seen as just livestock/animal wallets...?) get bored and move on to other games? Your "main source of game income" is gone. To top it off, you've already alienated your smaller, but consistent stream of revenue from players who left due to tossing out the fishing rods in favor of harpoons.

 

# Official Response

 

 

> * At a time when there’s a lot of debate about random boxes in gaming, we should have anticipated that a new system with a random element would cause alarm.

 

They thought their zero sum model would get a "pass" amid the current controversy.

 

> * 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.

 

I wouldn't even care about this if we were able to obtain something decent in game. This would be like giving every character the same outfit that never changes (a base set) and the only way to acquire different armor would be to buy it. This is what these mount skins feel like. You spent all this time making awesome mounts but decided only a small section of the player base is "worthy" of having them (or at least the skin they want).

 

> * The Adoption License is a large set at 30 skins. We stand by the work our artists put into each skin, but it’s understandable to see this as pushing down the odds of acquiring any one skin, and to worry that we might add more skins to lower the chances further.

 

I don't disagree that the skins look great and that your artists worked hard on making them look as good as they do. But why are **none** of these available via some in game method? Why is every single "alternative" locked behind a pay-wall? Would adding some to find/make/earn/achieve in-game truly mean we wouldn't get new living season updates?

 

> Here are some of the benefits we had in mind when designing the Mount Adoption License:

>

> * You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price.

 

It's not really a discount if we can't obtain them in any other way. This is suggesting that instead of paying $620 for all the skins they are graciously only charging $140 (minus the halloween mounts, which, by the way, had 5 skins for *less than the price of the Warforged Jackal*). To most gamers, $120 for skins is outrageous.

 

> * It uses a progressive mechanic. Every license gives you a new skin to use and increases the odds of acquiring any remaining skins.

 

Zero sum lootbox, n-1 until you get the last one. Better than Black Lion Chests or other games' lootboxes, but still not desirable.

 

> * 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.

 

There is no variety in the base game. Also, a *few* flashy skins? **Only 8.2% of skins are available without visiting the Gem Store (5 / 41).** That doesn't seem like a "few" to me; it seems like the* vast* majority.

 

> Microtransactions can be polarizing, and we’ve received both positive and negative feedback on the license.

 

The thing is, microtransactiosn don't have to be polarizing. They are only polarizing when it's anti-consumer in favor of a few wealthy individuals. If this is going to be the route the company is taking, why not simply have a "patronage" button that allows them to buy custom mount skins of their request?

 

> We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made, but I want to confirm to you that our next planned mount skin releases will focus on individual sales like the Reforged Warhound and bundles like the Spooky Mounts Pack. We will not add any skins to the currently available Adoption License, thus not pushing down the odds of acquiring any one skin in that set.

 

I'm sorry... but you wouldn't want to "invalidate" the investment? What about the investment of those who paid for the base game before it went "free-to-play"? Their investment was invalidated. Or is this suggesting that the skins will be available later for free? If I was a betting man (I'd buy Black Lion Chests) I'd wager that the current sales are fine because there are enough big spenders to make up for the folks who can't afford it or see it as way too much for what it offers. The only reason a response was even necessary was because it got so much attention.

 

# Final Thoughts

 

 

Go ahead and add skins or don't; it won't change my decision to not support a game that is moving toward a mobile, free-to-play monetization scheme. It's their property and they can do whatever they want, but they've lost a current and future customer - one who has been here since the launch of Guild Wars 1. I don't want to play "Credit Card 2: Fashion Wars - The Game". I refuse to pay $20 / 2000 gems for a mount skin (*half* the price of the expansion); I'd pay up to 400 gems. I refuse to pay 700 gems for an outfit or armor set; I'd pay 125-200 gems. There are plenty of QoL items in the store that aren't divisive or "controversial" because they aren't anti-consumer. Items like infinite gathering tools, copper and silver salvage-o-matic, name change contracts, etc.

 

$120 for all the skins? That's the price of *two full priced games* or a *lot* of indie titles. Perhaps I'm simply not part of your target audience anymore. I would be sad to say goodbye to my friends, but I would, of course, encourage them to join me in whatever I decide to play next.

 

I truly hope you take the current criticisms to heart, listen to the player feedback, and implement systems that allow you to continue development without alienating and favoring small sections of the player base, separated (primarily) by level of income (SES).

 

Thank you for reading.

 

[TheToxicFox.8710]

I expected a response and got one. Why was I surprised to see the reply they gave us?

 

Anet: "We're sorry but we're leaving it exactly as it is. GOOD LUCK." -crosses fingers and chants "spend more money"-

 

If this is the response they're going with then this gives them one last chance to redeem themselves. If they had fixed it, I would have been a little more forgiving.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

No, not happy. Not only did he sound like he was only apologizing because they got caught but he didn’t address all the underlying problems. Of which, one is this game’s excessive gemstore focus. In addition, he could have set up more sales opportunities, more bundles of these mounts to allow people to buy without RNG or having to buy the whole package at once instead on only giving us promises. Substance was wanted more than words.

 

ANet should reread this thread [A focus on micro transactions](https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/game/gw2/A-focus-on-micro-transactions/first)

[RoseofGilead.8907]

> @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> > @RoseofGilead.8907 said:

> > I don't care for the RNG boxes or RNG in the mount adoption thingies, and I don't plan to buy gems with real money to get them. However, I am so tired of a half dozen new rant threads popping up every day (at least most are being merged into the overall thread).

>

> Then don't read the mount threads? They don't auto-open.

 

I usually don't read them. They still push down other threads that aren't about the mount skin debacle, and that's what I'm tired of.

[The Only Exception.7430]

In my own opinion, if you want it buy gems and farm gold to get it, If you don't want to then wait for the next ones that MO spoke of that is not trapped in RNG boxes and forget about the skins you like among the 30 since you don't like the method to get them. By the end of the day these are just in-game mount skins, so it is up to you if you give them importance or not. They aren't game changers and you are not forced to buy them.

[danielrjones.8759]

I see a lot of "allow people to get gems back for ones they didn't want." For me I wouldn't have bought as many gems with gold to begin with except I did want some of the skins. . Had to change more gold than I wanted to get the ones I wanted. I don't want the gems back I want the gold back.

 

People are saying they want fairness right? How is my request less fair? Just because it would take more time to do? Anet would have to refund gold on a person by person basis because gold to gems rates constantly change. Not sure if people would want anet to spend the time and resource on going back and refunding on a person by person basis.

 

I say this because awhile back I bought 2 of the PoF packs that had the additional character slot. Paid more for gems because gem prices spiked up. I was unable to use the packs because I was max out on characters. Anet did refund the gems 14 days later but at that time gem prices already dropped. 30g per 400. I didn't want the gems I wanted my gold back. Of course that didn't happen. So essentially they refunded me gems that had considerably less value than what I paid. I would have never bought them at that rate had I knew the PoF packs wouldn't be applied to my account. So really my question is should Anet spend time and resources to go back and deal with each person individually?

Where is the line of Fairness drawn? As much as I dislike the situation I don't think Anet should have to do that. I may not like their answer over this but I understand if they truly wanted all people to be treated equally or fairly refunding gold would be the only way to do that. I chalked it up as a live and learn thing.

 

[Chickenooble.5014]

I don't care about the response or all the crying over the issue.

 

If people don't want to gamble for the current set of skins then they don't have to. Nothing requires a person have new skins to enjoy the game. This is like shoving the skins in the BL Chests but at least giving you a 100% chance to get a skin out of it. Again, if those odds aren't, or the process to acquire said skins, isn't your thing then don't spend the gems.

 

But, I think you "OMG DIS IS GAMBLUNG" or "LEWT BOXES R BED" crowd are losing. I see people all over with the new skins. Apparently, the vocal minority on the forums are really a vocal minority. :)

[Ohoni.6057]

> @OriOri.8724 said:

>I can't agree on it being exploitative since its not at all required to play the game.

 

Being "required to play the game" is not necessary for something to be exploitative. The entire nature of this delivery mechanism is designed to exploit human nature, to exploit player's interests in the skins, and exploit the human bias to believe that chance will favor them, that even if they only have a 1: 30 chance of getting the thing they want, they might get it. . . and now they have a 1:29 chance, that's even better! . . and now a 1:28 chance, well they can't miss now! . . . and now a 1:10 chance, well it's got to drop this time! . . etc. Humans are [lacking in self awareness], and this is exploiting that. The ONLY way it would not be exploitative is if the odds were 1:1, you give them money, you get the thing you wanted. Guaranteed.

[Djinn.9245]

> @Erasculio.2914 said:

> So, after community outcry against the RNG aspect of the Mount Adoption, ArenaNet has shared their [answer](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/15523/a-message-about-the-mount-adoption-license/p1) to the issue.

> Were you satisfied with what we got?

 

I am happy and impressed that there was an answer that wasn't on Reddit. I didn't like, nor agree with, the answer itself.

[Djinn.9245]

> @"Olterin Fire.5960" said:

> > @Hevoskuuri.3891 said:

> > Yeah, I'm happy. They made a mistake with the lootbox system, and a promise not to implement a system like that again in the future is good enough for me.

>

> It was a carefully-crafted PR response. I recommend reading it again, very carefully, and going over it with a fine tooth comb. Weigh every word of it. Get rid of potential personal bias. I suspect that if you do that, you will find that it does not, in fact, promise to not implement such a system again in the future.

 

Not only that, but there seems to be a veiled threat:

 

> @"Mike O Brien.4613" said:

> but I want to confirm to you that our next planned mount skin releases will focus on individual sales like the Reforged Warhound and bundles like the Spooky Mounts Pack.

 

Is Anet saying that their individual sales will all be 2000 gems? When Glider skins are about 700 gems, why should one mount skin be 2000 gems? Ridiculous.

 

And you are correct that they do not say they won't make mount loot boxes or any loot boxes again. What they do say is:

 

> @"Mike O Brien.4613" said:

>We will not add any skins to the currently available Adoption License, thus not pushing down the odds of acquiring any one skin in that set.

 

So all they say is that they won't add any skins to the existing Adoption License pack. Nothing else.