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

[Menadena.7482]

I am flabbergasted that they did something like this at the same time as they want people to tell others about the game. What did they honestly think we would tell others if we were kittened off about something?

[Devata.6589]

> @Vayne.8563 said:

> > @Erasculio.2914 said:

> > > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > > To be fair, these kind of polls are a good measure because the players who are not satisfied (like myself) are far more likely to go onto the forums, thus seeing the poll and voting.

> >

> > I wonder, though. We do have a lot of forumers who come here to complain... But also a lot of forumers who like the game and enjoy talking about it when they're not playing, and even some forumers whose most contributions to these forums are to defend ArenaNet. There's probably a way to try to quantify this, but I wonder if the bias of "people who come to the forum are mostly the complainers" does really exist.

>

> There have always been more people complaining than defending on these forums. It's been like that for a long time. And in every business I've ever been in that leaves out comment cards, it's mostly complaints. People who are angry are motivated to complain. You have to be a certain type of crazy to defend. It doesn't get you anything in the end. It's a lot of work. And at the end of the day people think you're a mindless fan boi, who's opinion doesn't count.

>

> I'm moderately satisfied with the answer given....but I'm also not looking at the skins and thinking I only want five of them anyway. I like most of the skins. I have a lot of characters, so none of them will go to waste. They're not going anywhere, so over time I can get them all. I don't have to drop that kind of money right now.

>

> I look at games like WOW that have mounts in their cash shop for $25, and I think, these guys charge a sub and they're still selling mounts for $25. I don't think people realize quite how tame this cash shop is, compared to a lot of what is out there.

>

> I think the reaction to the entire thing is way over the top, but I've also come to expect that from this community over certain hot button topics. But as one of the so-called defenders, there are far far more people complaining, and there always have been. Responding takes effort. It take time. If you're not angry about something, there's less motivation to post, because you don't need to spend the time. I do it, because I happen to have a lot of time....oh and I hate load screens. lol

 

 

"You have to be a certain type of crazy to defend. It doesn't get you anything in the end. It's a lot of work. And at the end of the day people think you're a mindless fan boi, who's opinion doesn't count." ~ "I look at games like WOW that have mounts in their cash shop for $25, and I think, these guys charge a sub and they're still selling mounts for $25. I don't think people realize quite how tame this cash shop is, compared to a lot of what is out there."

 

I always find it amusing when I see you try to compare GW2 to WoW and then mention how WoW also has those items in the cash-shop in a way to defend GW2. While consciously totally ignoring the numbers. It is also not as if you do not know the numbers because I mentioned them to you multiple times. You talked here about how defending a game would have people say you are a fan-boy. However, really it are these type of things that make people say that somebody is. Not just defending a game.

 

I 100% agree with you that a game that requires a sub should not sell even one mount in a cash-shop. However, just compare the numbers.

 

WoW has mounts in its game for almost 13 years now (10 days short of 13 years). In those 13 years, it added 11 mounts to the cash-shop. It added about 400 to the game itself. (There are also a few mounts you get from Blizzcon or a deluxe edition of an expansion).

 

Compare that to GW2. It has mounts for 1,5 month. In that period, it added 36 mounts to the cash-shop and 5 to the game.

 

Especially the sentence "I don't think people realize quite how tame this cash shop is, compared to a lot of what is out there." is then really funny.

 

[lokh.2695]

I don't care that much about the gambling issue tbh, i just wish for some mount/glider skins to aquire with in-game methods, i.e. quests/collections/currencies beside legendaries. Something basic but different, like Skins with your guild's emblem or racial mounts/gliders.

[Lanhelin.3480]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Lanhelin.3480 said:

> > > @Erasculio.2914 said:

> > > It's, again, interesting to see how stable the poll results are. Pretty much like in the other poll about the mount skins, results have been stable despite the number of voters doubling. We appear to be more or less on:

> > >

> > > * Very satisfied: 10%

> > > * Moderately satisfied: 10%

> > > * More or less: 15%

> > > * Moderately not satisfied: 10%

> > > * Not satisfied: 35%

> > > * Don't care: 15%

> > >

> > > Rounding down a bit (which accounts for the missing 5%).

> > >

> > > I wonder what that's a sample of - the forum community? Those willing to vote? Would it accuratelly represent the GW2 community as a whole (which we will never know, of course)? Or maybe it doesn't represent anything but the opinion of those who have voted. Anyway, it's interesting that percentages are again stable.

> >

> > I use the current poll votings as a small mirror of the whole playerbase.

> >

> > Numbers taken at 12:43 (GMT+1):

> > Very satisfied: 91

> > Not satisfied: 233

> >

> > Assuming the 91 very satisfied already bought or will buy the skins this results in gems spent worth €/$ 10.920 for Arenanet.

> > If the 233 not satisfied could buy 2 skins they want (lowest gem amount for €/$ 10), this would result in gems spent worth €/$ 2.330 for Arenanet. It'd need 859 more people who are not satisfied to equal the 91 very satisfied. Even if the 233 could buy 5 skins separately it'd reach only about the half.

> >

> > There one can see that despite pissing off a large amount of players by a rng sale model like this, it still is a lot more profitable for Arenanet if only a small amount of players comply with this kind of "microtransaction". But money should be a worth, not a value, especially in a game.

>

> but I think it's pretty reasonable to believe that more people spending a little can add up to more than a few people spending a lot, and furthermore, the "spend a lot" players are likely to be just as happy either way, and the more happy players you have, the more people you have willing to spend on *other* things.

 

Right, and ANet used to behave like that, but went into another direction. Players would be a lot happier, if there were skins ingame available too e.g. as achievement reward and not only buyable in the shop. Also the term "micro transaction" is disproportional, there's nothing micro about it, they rather should name it "macro transaction".

 

I guess mmo players in general became used to a certain amount of money a month they consider to be reasonable and fair to spend for a game, thanks to subscription based mmos. That's about 10-12 €/$. And this also more or less is the range for monthly micro transactions a lot of people, who like to support their game without the impression to get cheated, consider to be reasonable and fair. But not for rng ones. If the game would cost like 1.000 €/$, sorta luxury mmo, then 120 might count as micro, but it also would have a lot less players. One could argue that when 10 are considered the monthly amount then in the worst case one only has to wait 12 months, paying 10 each one, until one gets what one wants. But it also blocks every other purchase for 1 year and won't contribute much to consumer happiness.

 

[Jaquelidor.2618]

It wasn't the answer I was hoping for but it was an answer and in that regard I'm satisfied. I'd rather have a development team willing to engage with the community even if it's to give answers the community may not like than one that makes decisions then goes dark till the controversy blows over. Or worse flat out lies to the community in order to try and placate.

[Zakka.2153]

Pretty unhappy with the stance, they say they are sorry and won't do it again. Yet neglect to fix the issues that they are "sorry" for doing.

[Teratus.2859]

> @"Lady Deedra.3126" said:

> I think there response is fine. I own all 30 of them. My wife got all 30 of them. The only critique I would give them on the delivery of them was they should've considered the people who do not have griffons and put each mount type in its own class. Skimmer, Jackal, Springer, Griffon, Raptor and then give you an RNG drop from that set. I actually like them so much i'm gonna be giving them out to guildies all this week who may not otherwise be able to afford them.

 

That would have been the best option imo..

I personally own 4 now.. but what I really want is the Highland Harrier Griffon.. i'm willing to keep throwing a little cash into the game each month until I get it.

It does suck that people without griffons can end up unlocking skins for them.. I know i'd be annoyed if I was one of them.

[Djinn.9245]

> @Devata.6589 said:

>

> WoW has mounts in its game for almost 13 years now (10 days short of 13 years). In those 13 years, it added 11 mounts to the cash-shop. It added about 400 to the game itself. (There are also a few mounts you get from Blizzcon or a deluxe edition of an expansion).

 

Exactly. If I want to choose my own mount skin in GW2 instead of buying a bad chance at getting the skin I want, I have to pay $25 for the only skin not in the lootbox. If I want to choose my mount skin in WoW, there are over 400 mounts you can get in game. I don't HAVE to purchase one from the store for $25 because I have a huge choice of mounts in game with all kinds of ways to get them.

[TheLastNobody.8319]

As others have said, it was your standard PR spin, leaving a lot of loopholes to let them do as they please in the future, and take advantage of gamers’ short term memories in regards to problems.

 

The next release may not have a lootbox mechanic, but I’m certain they’ll go back to it in the future. Which is exactly what we need right now in this game with already abysmal rng

[Leo G.4501]

 

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Zedek.8932 said:

> >However, the majority of the complainers would've want an immediate change/fix, and that's not going to happen.

>

> I didn't expect an immediate fix, because I understand that this would likely take a little while to unwind, but what I was hoping for, and *still* expect from them in the coming days is an immediate *commitment* to a fix, to say "ok, we know we can't just leave this alone, we *will* be making the dirty-30 available via some alternate method, but it will take us some time to implement a way to do that which honors the commitments made by the existing purchasers." That'd be good enough to me, a promise that at some point in the reasonably near future I would be able to pick up the skins I wanted at a fair price. Then they can take a reasonable amount of time making that a reality.

>

> So far, however, the statement makes ZERO promises in that regard, and in fact practically promises that they *won't* ever fix the problem with the existing skins. That will never be an acceptable response.

 

I can tell you right now, by looking at the trends of the gemstore, they already had planned to release the skins in an alternate way in the "near future", you're just unwilling to actually LOOK. They will release some skins for long periods later down the line (probably a few months from now) for something like 1k gems but release the "special" skins for limited times for like 1.6k gems. I say the "near future" because likely it will be over the course of 6months to a year those releases will be spaced out (been waiting for that shiny griffon mount? Will likely released in Aug 2018 for 1 week for 1.8k gems). I think the problem is, you actually want these NOW. You don't want to wait for 6 months from now and you don't want to have the possibility of missing out on them. Well here's a news flash: you can. You just don't want to accept that you might have to buy a few other mounts in the process.

 

You don't like that people will pay a premium to get things sooner? Join the club, same goes for people that will rush every piece of content in the game so they can get their shinies before the masses.

[Setz.9675]

I find this response a complete insult to the playerbase to be honest.

On reddit someone posted the math about these mounts and the implications of it, link below.

 

 

If you want only 1 skin out of 30 you will need to spend ON AVERAGE 15 licenses to get it. Working as intended though, and that isn't even sarcasm.

If you want only 4 skins out of 30 you will need to spend ON AVERAGE 25 licenses to get it. We are now at the point that buying 30 skin pack is cheaper than gambling.

If you want only 15 skins out of 30 you will need to spend ON AVERAGE 29 licenses to get it. Buy the 30 pack. Pay up 120$ or 2700 gold.

 

I cannot read Mike's response in any other way than denigratory, insulting the community's intelligence and ability to perceive these disgusting marketing tactics.

> @"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.

>

> You have valid concerns about random boxes. We hoped that the design of the Mount Adoption License would be reassuring. In this case, we made some missteps:

>

> * 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.

> * 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.

> * 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.

>

>

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

> * 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.

>

>

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

>

> We appreciate the thoughtful feedback many of you have provided, and that you hold us to high standards for monetization. It’s been a challenging but wonderful goal to support live development and Living World purely through optional microtransactions, and it’s your support that’s made that possible. Thank you.

>

> ~ MO

 

 

 

[Witch of Doom.5739]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Vayne.8563 said:

> > I'm moderately satisfied with the answer given....but I'm also not looking at the skins and thinking I only want five of them anyway. I like most of the skins. I have a lot of characters, so none of them will go to waste. They're not going anywhere, so over time I can get them all. I don't have to drop that kind of money right now.

>

> Fair enough, but wouldn't you prefer to start with your favorites and pick up the rest over time?

>

This is why ANet did it via the gambling method -- because most people would buy their favorite(s) and then stop. This way they get poor sods to click and click and click on the 400-gem gamble, trying to get the one or few they want. So obvious.

 

[ROMANG.1903]

One way to at least calm the playerbase: make base mounts dyable. Please. We KNOW the dyes are there in the code, please let us use them! The eyes, the secondary skin colour...

[Phy.2913]

> @"Witch of Doom.5739" said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > @Vayne.8563 said:

> > > I'm moderately satisfied with the answer given....but I'm also not looking at the skins and thinking I only want five of them anyway. I like most of the skins. I have a lot of characters, so none of them will go to waste. They're not going anywhere, so over time I can get them all. I don't have to drop that kind of money right now.

> >

> > Fair enough, but wouldn't you prefer to start with your favorites and pick up the rest over time?

> >

> This is why ANet did it via the gambling method -- because most people would buy their favorite(s) and then stop. This way they get poor sods to click and click and click on the 400-gem gamble, trying to get the one or few they want. So obvious.

>

 

I would have bought a couple, but wont spend money to gamble it. Would they have made more with lots of smaller purchases or is the few big spenders going to make up for it.

[Oglaf.1074]

Look up on Google how freemium economies work.

 

They never wanted us to buy the individual Licenses; they were just there to encourage the "whales" of the game to shell out for the complete package at a hilarious 9k+ Gems.

[Gerrand.3085]

I seldom post in the official forums anymore, just the discus trenches in Dulfy - and I had a running joke that Anet had such worthless, meaningless announcements that they'd be better off not making announcements. By the time we hit the head of the snake, I'd reversed my statement. My running joke was that the releases were of such quality and the announcements so sincere and informative that there was no point to me making comments anymore. It seems we are back to the days of Anet rearranging meaningless words and cheery corporate platitudes while failing to make any statement about anything.

 

Let me split this into two halves, the response as a whole and then some comments on their justification.

 

On the entire message, Anet has not conceded they did anything wrong, has opted not to change anything currently implemented and has made no commitments to not repeating the exact behavior that got so many people outraged in the first place. If one is to consider this a response to people's actual concerns then the response is that regardless of anything the community said, they are continuing with whatever they were planning to do before with zero consideration for anything the community has said. Well played Anet -.-

 

On the justifications listed, let me first list the assumptions upon which I base my views:

1) Mount reskins appear to be extremely low effort creations. This does not mean that mount skins are not of a high quality but that they can be produced in very little time with very little production cost. I say this because of two things. Firstly because from years of listening to Anet complain of the difficulty of producing new armors pieces, the main difficulty with production is preventing wide spread clipping - which is why we still get backpacks, shoulder and head pieces in living world releases. The fact that the models change so little (and that so little on the models actually change) puts the effort of creating mount skins way below outfits - essentially coming down to paint patch changes and duct-taping fx onto the existing models. The other side of this is found in just looking at how fast Anet went from saying they weren't sure if mount skins were even going to be implemented to churning out 31 friggen skins - which seem to have taken slightly longer then the period from Halloween to present day.

 

2) We have existing gem store standards for prices between singular 300 gem normal skins (braham's shoulders or lawless gloves) and singular 500 gem fx enhanced skins (chaos gloves or foefire mantle). We also have a clean track record of the standard for discount bulk purchases being either 10% or 20% from which we can use the Halloween mount bundle to deduce that from the 1600 gem bundle 5 mount skin pack, that the worth of a single mount skin was between 400 gems - which, surprise surprise, is the exact same cost of gliders.

 

So, onto the supposed list of "reasons"

1) "You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price". There is no discount. The price of the mount rng boxes seems identical to what a straight up mount skin purchase should cost - and if not, the difference is about 50 gems, which is neither a substantial discount or a reduction which would make a difference to anyone (see our new 2000 gem mount norm -.-).

 

3) "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.". In which Anet seems to suggest both that these skins are desired by the masses and yet stating that no-one would buy them. Plus seeing as we already had price tiers for fx and non-fx skins, there is no reaosn that these skins couldn't just be sold for cheaper. Plus as far as I can see, these skins don't take that much effort to create.

2) "It uses a progressive mechanic. Every license gives you a new skin to use and increases the odds of acquiring any remaining skins." What hogwash is this? Its a predatory mechanic and if a person is only after 3-4 skins, the average box count to get two of the items the purchaser actually wants will place the price of both above the warhound skin (which is of much higher quality then all but 2 of em).

 

Its all just plain sleezy. When the response claims that they never saw this negative reaction coming, does anyone actually believe them - and if not, why did they bother posting it. They call out their own flaws without putting any effort into addressing them.

 

The worst part is that I'm not even against rng fashion with a paid option to progress faster. Take overwatch's system and slow it down a notch. Lets assume that a new mount was added to the adoption paper mount pool every month and every month we rotated a new currency to one of GW2's meta maps which allowed players to grind that map for the month purchase a single mount adoption paper. That would have been a cool system which would have allowed players to slowly obtain random mount skins while maintaining the appeal of the overpriced rng skin boxes while solving the only long lasting issue GW2 has - its inability to provide meaningful rewards wit each living world release (instead of yet another way to get yet another ascended ring and accessory.

 

Ultimately Anet is a business and we customers. Anet can make whatever financial decision it wants and we can leave whenever we want. That said, I feel like my partner in just turned into scum 4 years into a relationship. When Path of Fire came out I quite literally preached to my friends group how much better GW2 was and got 4 of them to rejoin and buy all the content (and none of them even knew that PoF had come out). When this rng fest dropped I apologised to the and with this shady turn of principles by Anet (and their inability to concede anything is wrong with it in their response) I have no intention of talking to any further people about GW2 - and if it should come up, this scum rng move is the only point I feel merits airing.

[Arricson Krei.9560]

The micro-transactions are purely optional and are non pay-to-win. MO is right about that. In-game rewards would be nice, but entirely optional. We don't need a reskin obtainable in-game. That's a luxury.

 

While not explicitly saying something like, "We're sorry." or "We'll do better in the future.", they did manage to show some humility in saying that future mount skin releases will be more like Reforged Warhound and bundles. That's a good thing. They didn't comment on price, but whatever. If people don't buy them, Anet will fix their prices. MO was also smart to say that they do not intend on invalidating the investment made by people who have already used the Adoption license. That's also a really good thing.

 

A message to the community: You don't need shinies. You don't get to make business decisions for these shinies. If you're unhappy with the product, don't buy it. If people do, that's their prerogative.

[ROMANG.1903]

> @"Arricson Krei.9560" said:

> The micro-transactions are purely optional and are non pay-to-win. MO is right about that. In-game rewards would be nice, but entirely optional. We don't need a reskin obtainable in-game. That's a luxury.

>

> A message to the community: You don't need shinies. You don't get to make business decisions for these shinies. If you're unhappy with the product, don't buy it. If people do, that's their prerogative.

 

In a game where the only appeal in running end-game content is to get skins, I consider having more gemstore skins than baseline skins to be near pay-to-win.

 

In others words, if the goal is to get skins, and that the immense majority of skins are behind a paywall, yes. It is pay to win.

[hestiansun.1425]

My biggest objection to the way this was handled was that what I consider to be basic game functionality (using dye colors) is locked behind RNG.

I wanted the ability to colorize each of my mounts. That's all. It would have been nice to get a skin that was actually a unique model, but that was secondary.

Anet COULD have had their cake and eaten it too - make 30 mount skins, but make four of them the exact same model with slightly different patterns, and two "unique" models including animations, and have those latter two be the "chase" ones. But let the players actually choose what mount they wanted the skin for. So if someone just wanted one of each, they could have bought one of each. If someone hasn't spent the time or money to get the griffon, they don't need a griffon skin. They are still gambling over getting the style and design they want (and I am sure there are people who would have gone again and again until they got the starbound griffon anyway), and are still getting their money off of RNG.

People who just wanted the basic functionality to dye their mounts could have done just that. But no, they didn't do that.

 

Not only did they lock the "cool designs" behind an RNG lootbox, they which one you got too.

So when I read Mike's post, and how he is talking about the concern that people would just buy what they want, and he reacts with such scorn to that concept -

Please know, Mike, that you have made me gamble to have BASIC FUNCTIONALITY of your game for each of my mounts. And despite having less than a 10% chance of it happening, I managed to open 9 boxes and not get one skin for each mount.

 

Thanks for the RNG, guys. I can't wait for you to implement this RNG in your other basic functionaly. Like character creation. "Oh, you want to make a warrior? Ok, start opening up boxes. I'm sure you'll get to make one eventually, after you get a condi ranger and power ranger and support ranger..."

[Leo G.4501]

> @hestiansun.1425 said:

> So when I read Mike's post, and how he is talking about the concern that people would just buy what they want, and he reacts with such scorn to that concept -

> Please know, Mike, that you have made me gamble to have BASIC FUNCTIONALITY of your game for each of my mounts. And despite having less than a 10% chance of it happening, I managed to open 9 boxes and not get one skin for each mount.

>

> Thanks for the RNG, guys. I can't wait for you to implement this RNG in your other basic functionaly. Like character creation. "Oh, you want to make a warrior? Ok, start opening up boxes. I'm sure you'll get to make one eventually, after you get a condi ranger and power ranger and support ranger..."

 

To make clear to posters reading through these comments:

 

1. Mike O'Brian didn't react with scorn. This is a sensationalized comment to paint someone as the bad guy. For all we know, their marketing dept. could have been pressing them to make more marketable additions for their gem store and the concept for the mount grab-bag gem sale could have been someone else's idea. Luckily, Mike didn't blame someone else, he took responsibility like a good leader should. Somehow, though, this is a greenlight to demonize someone to make a point. To a rational person who understands these types of things, this is a sleezy way to make an argument.

 

2. You aren't gambling for basic functionality of the game. You can obtain and dye each mount without making any gem purchases or gambling. Just because you can't utilize special cosmetic options doesn't mean a basic function of the game is held off from you.

 

3. Fashion Wars is a concept created by the community. Considering fashion is subjective, how or to what extent you participate is purely dependant on the player. Just because a backpiece skin is locked behind copious amounts of WvW or PvP gameplay doesn't mean I am entitled to it if I don't want to play those modes. That is no different than the gem store or black lion chest skins or raid farmed skins or fractals.

 

4. RNG and Gambling is a misleading term when talking about the adoption licenses. A better term is "grab-bag" where you just get one you don't have. Gambling implies you can get something worth more than what you put in, the same or something worth *LESS* than what you put in. The blacklion chests are gambling chest as it's likely you'll get stuff not worth the gems you put in. But every mount skin is worth, at minimum, 400 gems. And you will never get a(n RNG) duplicate which you can't say for blacklion chests.

 

5. Sensationalized analogies. This is *NOTHING* like the game forcing you to roll a specific class or race. These types of posts make those arguing for more favorable prices look *BAD*. Stop that.

[Lanhelin.3480]

> @"Mike O Brien.4613" said:

> It’s easy to perceive this as intentionally channeling you toward randomization.

 

And it wasn't only the skins, you also removed the general merchant NPC at the bank in Amnoon, so the only NPCs left we can sell there, are the Casino-NPCs (or the ones in the paywall-area). I "perceive" something, yes ...

 

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> I can tell you right now, by looking at the trends of the gemstore, they already had planned to release the skins in an alternate way in the "near future", you're just unwilling to actually LOOK. They will release some skins for long periods later down the line (probably a few months from now) for something like 1k gems but release the "special" skins for limited times for like 1.6k gems. I say the "near future" because likely it will be over the course of 6months to a year those releases will be spaced out (been waiting for that shiny griffon mount? Will likely released in Aug 2018 for 1 week for 1.8k gems). I think the problem is, you actually want these NOW. You don't want to wait for 6 months from now and you don't want to have the possibility of missing out on them. Well here's a news flash: you can. You just don't want to accept that you might have to buy a few other mounts in the process.

 

Everything they've said so far indicates that they never plan to release any of these thirty via an alternate method. If that had been their plan, they could have indicated as such in the "sorry/notsorry" post and it would have done them a lot of PR good. Instead me talked about doing differently on *future* skins, which I took to indicate new skins we haven't seen before.

 

> @ROMANG.1903 said:

> One way to at least calm the playerbase: make base mounts dyable. Please. We KNOW the dyes are there in the code, please let us use them! The eyes, the secondary skin colour...

 

And the thing is, before this, I was *fine* with the dye channel mounts being exclusive to the gem store, but that was contingent on the simple ones being released at 100-250 gems, as just something that was "cheap enough who cares?" A 400 gem minimum buy-in with absolutely no guarantee you'll even get the right animal? No kitten way.

 

 

[PookieDaWombat.6209]

I would've been angrier if I hadn't already expected the lukewarm, "we are only changing how we do this because we got such an angry response". And even then what they are going to do is more of a veiled "please stop hitting us with negative stuff in the media" feel.

 

Why no opening the skins in the RNG up to the TP? Why no offer to just allow people to buy one from the pack they most wanted even if it was for 600 per skin or even 700. Just a nebulous "we're gonna do it different" moving forward. Feels kind of like when my kid gets caught doing something wrong and then promising they won't do it again while thinking about the next thing they had planned while smirking about it.

 

Too many things have been done by Anet in the past and too many vague half apologies given since the launch of GW2. This might have honestly been the proverbial straw after the many bridges too far.

[hestiansun.1425]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

 

Hi Leo. Let me start by saying thank you for the personal attacks and insults. That is a pleasant and productive contribution to this thread.

 

> To make clear to posters reading through these comments:

 

As super appreciative as I am of your earnest attempts to translate my comments into a language more digestible to the other folks reading on the forum (since so many asked you to do that for them), I'd appreciate it if you didn't change their meaning as much as you do. But again, very noble of you to "make clear" my comments, even if you completely changed them.

 

> > So when I read Mike's post, and how he is talking about the concern that people would just buy what they want, and he reacts with such scorn to that concept -

>

> 1. Mike O'Brian didn't react with scorn. This is a sensationalized comment to paint someone as the bad guy. For all we know, their marketing dept. could have been pressing them to make more marketable additions for their gem store and the concept for the mount grab-bag gem sale could have been someone else's idea. Luckily, Mike didn't blame someone else, he took responsibility like a good leader should. Somehow, though, this is a greenlight to demonize someone to make a point. To a rational person who understands these types of things, this is a sleezy way to make an argument.

>

 

Mike, in his post, seemed to demonstrate scorn for the concept (that's what I wrote, btw, thanks for leaving it in there) that players would want to have choice in something as basic as which mounts they randomly/grab bagged/got skins for. I didn't say he said rude or nasty things, or insult or demean someone. (You did, btw, but that's ok - I forgive you.) I said that his post indicates his feeling on that idea. Which is to say, he (and the rest of anet) scorn the idea of allowing players to choose which mounts they drew skins from.

 

I'm not sure who you would prefer I address my response to a post to aside from its author. I mean, I didn't call Mike a bad name, or say he was "sleezy" (oh, hey, you did though!), or send people to his house with pitchforks. I said, quite literally because you even did me the courtesy of quoting it, that he was concerned about how people would buy things, and they didn't want to allow that to happen.

 

> 2. You aren't gambling for basic functionality of the game. You can obtain and dye each mount without making any gem purchases or gambling. Just because you can't utilize special cosmetic options doesn't mean a basic function of the game is held off from you.

 

As a level 1 character fresh out of the tutorial, I can use the basic color dyes that are available to me to change multiple aspects of each article of armor that I am wearing. (Those are referred to as dye channels). Pretty basic functionality for a game whose hallmark is visual aesthetics. Right?

 

The basic mounts that you can "obtain...without making any gem purchases or gambling" each have one very minor aspect that can be dyed. This is clearly by design, because...

 

Each of the additional mounts that can be purchased via the Adoption method has four channels for dyes, allowing you to completely customize your mount.

 

True, some of them also have cool sparkly effects, and a horn on its nose that others don't, etc. But they (much like their counterparts, btw) have different parts of their body that can be different colors. This is true of all of them, regardless of how elaborate the patterns may or may not be.

 

Anet, in the interests of driving up sales of their mount skins package, has disabled the ability of players to dye the mounts earned through in-game activity beyond these small accents. If they want to ride a white rabbit, instead of a brown one, they must by an adoption license and luckily get a Springer, and then they can change that skin (regardless of which it is) to whatever color white they want.

 

That functionality, to me, seems like basic game functionality. And not only is it gated behind a purchase, it is gated behind a RANDOMIZED purchase.

 

So, I'm not asking for a "special cosmetic option" - I'm asking for the ability to change color on the mount, which we can do for just about everything else we have. Basic, right?

 

>

> 3. Fashion Wars is a concept created by the community. Considering fashion is subjective, how or to what extent you participate is purely dependant on the player. Just because a backpiece skin is locked behind copious amounts of WvW or PvP gameplay doesn't mean I am entitled to it if I don't want to play those modes. That is no different than the gem store or black lion chest skins or raid farmed skins or fractals.

 

I don't disagree on this. But we are talking about different things. One is a skin which shows dedication to a certain aspect or mode of the game - WvW vs PvP vs PvE vs PvE-Fractal, etc. And, oh, btw, it can be earned, with confidence and precision, by doing the tasks required to get it. It may takes weeks or months of effort to work up to the Legendary WvW Backpack, but you KNOW it is there at the end. If I was able to take an action (aside from whipping out my credit card to pay $100) to know that I could earn or play my way up to being able to dye my mounts, I'd be totally ok with that. Do you see how those are different examples? Because you seem to be very upset at analogies that you don't think are spot on, as you seem to show later.

 

>

> 4. RNG and Gambling is a misleading term when talking about the adoption licenses. A better term is "grab-bag" where you just get one you don't have. Gambling implies you can get something worth more than what you put in, the same or something worth *LESS* than what you put in. The blacklion chests are gambling chest as it's likely you'll get stuff not worth the gems you put in. But every mount skin is worth, at minimum, 400 gems. And you will never get a(n RNG) duplicate which you can't say for blacklion chests.

 

The best term of all is probably "blind draw", or as you say, "grab bag", but nonetheless, the term RNG is what has been used by most in the thread, and so I felt comfortable using it in my reply to the people of the thread. I used the term "gambling" once, as a verb, because RNG-ing isn't a verb in the English language (yet). Included along with your definition (which you say implies, but really, is just another acceptable definition) of gamble is "any matter or thing involving risk or hazardous uncertainty". I would daresay that there is an element of uncertainty in spending 400 gems on something of which there are 30 different possible outcomes. Or would you say that's certain?

 

> 5. Sensationalized analogies. This is *NOTHING* like the game forcing you to roll a specific class or race. These types of posts make those arguing for more favorable prices look *BAD*. Stop that.

 

Oh, hey. It's a criticism of analogies. See above as far as that goes.

 

I wasn't saying it is the same thing. Or even making an analogy (defn: a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.)

 

I was using an established manner of rhetoric (defn: the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.) to demonstrate how continued progression along the lines of placing what I feel is basic functionality behind randomized chance (or uncertainty, if you will) would lead to an absurd point. Which when tracing back from the absurd point to the current point, demonstrates the fundamental error in the current situation as well. Because sometimes you can't see things if you look at the teeny tiny, but it becomes more obvious in the larger.

 

I do, however, truly, truly appreciate your attempts to restate everything that I said, if only because it lets me reinforce my position since clearly it was misunderstood by at least one person in the audience.

 

I could have done without being called "sleezy", though. Or being told to "Stop that." like I'm six years old.

 

But hey, it's the Internet. Glad that made you feel better, buddy.

 

[Leo G.4501]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> Everything they've said so far indicates that they never plan to release any of these thirty via an alternate method.

 

Then you didn't look very hard. They already have 1 of the 30 skins available for direct purchase. Not sure how long that is going to be available considering the price of it but that, to me, is already indication they were willing to sell the individual guaranteed skins for a price higher than the grab-bag option.

 

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

>If that had been their plan, they could have indicated as such in the "sorry/notsorry" post and it would have done them a lot of PR good.

 

They did but not directly. The reason they don't state things in black and white is because complainers will repost those things as promises and when things are required to change (it happens. Some decisions are outside of their power) the PR storm from being demonized as liars going back on their word is a lot more difficult to fight. He 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."

 

See the part about "a few, flashy skins"? If you didn't know, each mount has 1-2 flashy skins (3 if you want to include the spooky mount). They were planning to sell those few flashy skins on timed sales but they aren't obviously going to say that now because they're going to have to figure out what/if changes are going to be made to their distribution methods.

 

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

>Instead me talked about doing differently on *future* skins, which I took to indicate new skins we haven't seen before.

 

Obviously, he's talking about future skins because they've already stated the adoption licenses won't include any more skins so as not to saturate the options. But again, they're not stating anything concrete because for all we know, they could just have adoption licenses v2 with a whole set of mounts that draws from a pool of skins unique from v1.