jheryn.8390 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 They did it wrong. They admitted that they did it wrong. They said they are not going to do it again. For heaven's sake people, what more can they do? People have already purchased a lot of the skins. Kind of hard to change what has been done now as they said. Give them a break. Don't tell me that none of you has ever screwed up. Sheesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haleydawn.3764 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @"Leo G.4501" said: > 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. Not quite. There's 31 new skins. 30 are in the Licence, the Warhound is seperate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asum.4960 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > @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. If you are referring to the Reforged Warhound (since I don't see any other skin being individually sold), that is not one of the 30 gamble skins. It's a marketing decoy and it's primary purpose is not to be sold, but to increase the perceived value of the gambling boxes, to give the consumer the impression of a discount. This whole gemstore patch was so marketing 101, I almost think ArenaNet just hired someone who just got their marketing bachelor, who came in with "Guys, I have this insane strategy to make you guys tons of money, give me this shot and I will blow you away", and they let him or her lead the patch, thinking they knew some super smart business trick nobody could see past. Now credit where it's due, it seems to work on some, but boy did that not work out as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hestiansun.1425 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > @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. > Which one? (please say reforged warhound please say reforged warhound please say reforged warhound) > "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. I simply love the way you talk down to people, Leo. Do you work for anet? Otherwise, how can you be so certain (certain enough that you are talking down to fellow players) that Mike's generic "a few, flash skins" refers specifically to "those few flashy skins" ? Because, uh, I kinda read his statement differently. He says that if they just a few flashy skins, individual sale as a mechanic would work. But they didn't, and so they used a different mechanic that gives them more leeway. I don't know how you get from that statement that they intend to release those specific flashy ones that were part of this mechanic in their own individual sale. That strikes me as pure conjecture on your part, and if so, probably not something that you should be talking down to someone about. Seriously, you ought to re-consider the attitude and tone that you are using when speaking with or about others online. I know it's great to be anonymized and all, but keep things respectful without hurling insults or talking down to people for simply not agreeing with your own conjecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElRetro.1637 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 Personally I don't plan on purchasing any mount skins anytime soon just because I'm perfectly content with how the mounts look as they are with different coloration. I only just recently, with the 2000 gems from my purchase of the high-end edition of Path of Fire, bought a glider skin (the Dynamics glider). The default glider skin was something I didn't enjoy but I never splurged until now. Now assuming i was going to splurge on a mount skin, it would be nice to be able to pick which one I specifically want to use. So the randomness/gambling aspect of the adoption licences makes me less likely to purchase a skin. However, I do like what Mike O Brien stated, that a system like this diminishing RNG means could mean a little more variety. It's nicer to see a variety than everyone rocking the same thing. That being said, I feel like peoples personal preferences lead to enough disparity and that's easily seen in the glider skins. I get that a lot of games now are using loot crate systems, but most of those are earned just by playing the game even if they take a while to get and I don't feel this system for mount skins is a good way to approach that. In short I feel it's a little less respectful to make the purchases/rewards so random, as opposed to just letting people pick them outright as they could/can do with glider skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @hestiansun.1425 said: > > @"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. I just re-read my post and nothing I said was a personal attack or insult. I critiqued your arguments. Calling your debating tactic sleezy isn't a personal attack and that's the only thing I said directed at you. If you think it's wrong to call someone's argument sleezy then why would you do it yourself? > @hestiansun.1425 said: > > 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. > And it's great you clarified some of your arguments, although it really didn't strengthen any of them. Beyond restating them as not being sensationalized analogies to "slippery slope fallacy", it's nice that you end off doing exactly what you say I did ("I'd appreciate it if you didn't change their meaning as much as you do") to round out your post. I'd give it a 6 out of 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @Haleydawn.3764 said: > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > > 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. > > Not quite. There's 31 new skins. 30 are in the Licence, the Warhound is seperate. I guess that's a piece of information I wasn't aware of. I looked at Dulfy's video about all the new mounts and didn't really count so just rolled it into all the mount adoption pool. With that revelation, I guess my previous assumption is dumped. Had it been included though, it would be very telling of their plans. Since it isn't, it just means their plans are ambiguous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hestiansun.1425 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > @Haleydawn.3764 said: > > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > > > > 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. > > > > Not quite. There's 31 new skins. 30 are in the Licence, the Warhound is seperate. > > I guess that's a piece of information I wasn't aware of. I looked at Dulfy's video about all the new mounts and didn't really count so just rolled it into all the mount adoption pool. Who didn't look very hard? I love your almost Orbachian "apology" to Haleydawn there for your tone and insinuation into how much they looked or didn't look. > With that revelation, I guess my previous assumption is dumped. Had it been included though, it would be very telling of their plans. Since it isn't, it just means their plans are ambiguous. Well, you know what they say about when you "assume". Since all of your other comments talking down and deriding others based around Anet's plans to do things are similarly based around your assumptions, I guess I can safely throw them all out. Thanks for making it clear who and what you are. Enjoy the rest of your day, our work here is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @hestiansun.1425 said: > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > > @Haleydawn.3764 said: > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Not quite. There's 31 new skins. 30 are in the Licence, the Warhound is seperate. > > > > I guess that's a piece of information I wasn't aware of. I looked at Dulfy's video about all the new mounts and didn't really count so just rolled it into all the mount adoption pool. > > Who didn't look very hard? > > I love your almost Orbachian "apology" to Haleydawn there for your tone and insinuation into how much they looked or didn't look. > > > With that revelation, I guess my previous assumption is dumped. Had it been included though, it would be very telling of their plans. Since it isn't, it just means their plans are ambiguous. > > Well, you know what they say about when you "assume". > > Since all of your other comments talking down and deriding others based around Anet's plans to do things are similarly based around your assumptions, I guess I can safely throw them all out. > > Thanks for making it clear who and what you are. Enjoy the rest of your day, our work here is done. This isn't twitter. I don't owe you an "apology", this is a debate. And it's easy to dismiss my arguments based on one mistake. It's necessary you do so when you cannot make a proper argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @Devata.6589 said: > > @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. > The numbers are completely irrelevant to me. They're still selling some of their most popular mounts, ie the mounts everybody wants in the cash shop and people still buy them, even though they're charging a sub. But unlike me, you ignore the ENTIRE REST OF THE INDUSTRY to make your pet point which you believe is true, and like two other people. Most others over the years have not only not agreed with you but strenuously have disagreed. The bottom line is these random mounts are $5 roughly and if you can find another computer MMORPG that sells mounts for $5 I'd be interested, because most of them sell mounts for around $25, which is all the ones I've seen. It's not just WoW. It's not just description games. People keep saying this game is greedy and this is a cash grab and that is a cash grab. You'd think with all these cash grabs, the income would go up. It doesn't go up because it's not cash grabs. It's what companies do to move forward with five year old games, with very very few exceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > > @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. Interesting, how can you tell? By looking at how Anet has taken skins from a lootbox and then offered them individually some time later? I don't remember that ever happening. What trends of the gemstore have you been looking at to lead you to this conclusion? > @"Leo G.4501" said: > 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. If Anet waits 6 months to give us reasonable choices for individual mount skins, how many people who could have purchased those skins will still be playing by then? No, that is not a threat but the simple truth that people come and go from MMOs. Months after an expansion, many people leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SansSariph.9548 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 I was not satisfied by Mike's reply - you can check out my post history to see why, in detail. I am vehemently against the current pricing. That being said I am very satisfied with Gaile's continued handling of the conversation on the forums. Gaile, thank you for digging through pages upon pages of impassioned feedback from both sides and bringing it back to the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @jheryn.8390 said: > They did it wrong. They admitted that they did it wrong. They said they are not going to do it again. For heaven's sake people, what more can they do? No, they didn't. You need to read the response again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PookieDaWombat.6209 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @jheryn.8390 said: > They did it wrong. They admitted that they did it wrong. They said they are not going to do it again. For heaven's sake people, what more can they do? > > People have already purchased a lot of the skins. Kind of hard to change what has been done now as they said. > > Give them a break. Don't tell me that none of you has ever screwed up. Sheesh. And if this was their first ever screw up I'd be a bit more forgiving, maybe. But this isn't the first time and their apology was more a sorry not sorry kind of scenario. It was more a justification and sales pitch about why it was still a good idea when it obviously wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Hayes.6890 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 From a business standpoint, this is exactly the type of response I expected given the huge outcry about the new skins. I would be more interested in answering a poll responding to the next mount skin or skins release. That will be the moment we see how they respond to the feedback. I expect this kind of answer for this kind of issue which is why I am very okay with the response. It signifies they are paying attention. What I truly care about and believe is the more important landmark is what they actually do next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @"Leo G.4501" said: >With that revelation, I guess my previous assumption is dumped. Had it been included though, it would be very telling of their plans. Since it isn't, it just means their plans are ambiguous. It would take a VERY optimistic reading of the "sorry/notsorry" post to indicate that they will ever release the existing 30 RNG mount skins in any other distribution format. They don't explicitly promise that they never will, but they don't even *hint* that they might. The most straightforward interpretation of that post is that they intend for the gambleboxes to be the ONLY way to get *these* thirty skins, but that they intend to release more skins later in other ways. If that is not ANet's position, it would take only a single sentence from them to clear up that misunderstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrokeNZ.8721 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 ArenaNet's answer was shameful. Not only did they not recognize the legitimacy of the criticism, they also waved it away nonchalantly with no hint of being regretful. It's hard to believe that this is the same ArenaNet that i loved so fiercely for being consumer friendly and for making a game brimming with their passion. Let's go over some of their points. > 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. That's impressive deflection. I'm sorry but perception isn't even a factor in this. The very concept, the very structure, the very design of it is intentionally channeling you towards randomization. There's nothing to perceive in this. What joke is this? > You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a **substantial discount versus an individual purchase price**. Consumer gets skins which the consumer _didn't choose_ and to justify it they say "cheaper" than an individual purchase. Have you taken into account how much more expensive it will get when you re-buy over and over again until you finally get the one skin you actually want? I believe this option is many times more expensive than individual purchase. They deflected with a justification this time. This design is the very definition of practicing anti-consumerism. You remove our option to choose. > 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 is the most brilliant point of them all because this statement itself is a mess. If the playerbase actually wanted those wide range of player taste skins then they would've released them as individual purchases because of their confidence in the work they've put into them. But in the same statement they recognize that only successfully unique, impressive skins get the attention of the consumer and that they have no confidence in these skins. The vast majority of these skins does not meet that criteria. So the solution they came up with is to shove these unwanted skins down our throats along with the couple of few skins we actually do want. They lower the price for them all so they can justify this act while making up the revenue they would've lost hypothetically if they sold them individually, because few skins would be favored over others. In this method _all of the skins would be sold evenly even if they would've been extremely unpopular in the free market._ ## TL;DR They are removing the option to choose as a consumer, they throw in gambling aspects into it which is predatory, they lower the price to justify removing your freedom to choose, they deflect and essentially say it's our perception that is to blame while they engross themselves in the paid lootbox culture menace that is taking over the gaming industry. Am i in an alternative universe? Is this the same ArenaNet? The only consoling solace i can find in all of this is that they won't do something like this again. The rest is just wallowing in sorrowful betrayal of trust and consumer confidence. I just never expected ArenaNet to do something like this. I guess it's my fault for putting ArenaNet on a pedestal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asum.4960 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 > @Vayne.8563 said: > The bottom line is these random mounts are $5 roughly and if you can find another computer MMORPG that sells mounts for $5 I'd be interested, because most of them sell mounts for around $25, which is all the ones I've seen. It's not just WoW. It's not just description games. People keep saying this game is greedy and this is a cash grab and that is a cash grab. You'd think with all these cash grabs, the income would go up. It doesn't go up because it's not cash grabs. Aside from the very rare situation of someone being equally happy with any of the mount skins, they are not at all 5€. It's a gamble, if you want a specific skin it costs you between 5€ and 150€. Now I was never good a math, but I'm pretty sure that the average spending to get the skin (or few skins) you want is not in fact 5€. Excusing something bad with something worse doesn't really help either. That way the games industry just spirals perpetually into worse and worse business practices, all in the name of the debunked notion of "video games are so expensive nowdays". > @Vayne.8563 said: > It's what companies do to move forward with five year old games, with very very few exceptions. Experience shows _"It's what companies do (or what publishers force devs to do) to milk a game before it dies, with very very few exceptions."_ would be more fitting I don't want that and I presume you don't want that either. That is why we are here trying to let ArenaNet know that this is not the way to go. "We think we are not going to make enough money with microtransactions to keep the game going long term, so let's make way more aggressive and exploitative microtransactions which scare away a good chunk of the paying player base and future players", seems like a self fulfilling prophecy leading to failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seadust.6910 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 Honestly this whole ordeal makes me feel as if Arenanet has decided to stab me in the back and instead make me no longer trust them. I really wish MO would have actually addressed the concerns and make real change instead of giving us such a half-hearted apology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeceiverX.8361 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 ANet's priorities, lol. This is just downright funny. I take it they didn't sell enough copies of PoF and are freaking out about what to report to NCSoft with. Maybe if they took the time to fix their broken-cat game instead of shoving new content down our throats at every possible opportunity, people would just be willing to come back. The game isn't worth playing if the content isn't worth playing. It doesn't matter how much stuff there is to do if people aren't enjoying their time doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 > @Seadust.6910 said: > Honestly this whole ordeal makes me feel as if Arenanet has decided to stab me in the back and instead make me no longer trust them. I really wish MO would have actually addressed the concerns and make real change instead of giving us such a half-hearted apology. The problem is that he wasn't trying to apologize. He was hoping that a bunch of PR-speak would get us to calm down. I am, and have been calm. I am calmly not giving them any money until they sell mount skins like they sell glider skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip H.3951 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 I answered, no, not satisfied. As I said in my 2 cents piece in the official thread, this isn't a deal breaker, but they failed to own up to the principal problem: ALL mount skins are currently behind a pay wall, the RNG with this large collection is just added insult. Until they give us purely in game options, they can suck eggs as far as I'm concerned when it comes to mount skins. If and when I feel I've purchased all the functional items I want from gem store, I might or might not take a spin at the gacha wheel, but the odds are heavily toward not ever bothering so long as mount cosmetics remain solely behind a pay wall. Keeping mount customization purely a function of paying real money is the main problem for me*, and their response neither addressed that factor, nor pledged that there would be in game options down the road. *Even swapping gold for gems IS spending real money, someone else's real money admittedly, but players delude themselves there is anything free in the gem store. There wouldn't be gems to exchange gold for if there weren't less fiscally concerned players willing to buy gems for the purpose of converting to gold. One way or another, ANet gets their $0.0125/gem. It may not be your $0.0125/gem, but it's somebody's, and high demand gem store exclusives like this exist purely to encourage players to become de facto subcontracted gold farmers for ANet. In general, I think this practice of letting people choose how to play & pay for the game is a good thing, but, in this case, it crosses a line into exploitative since we have no choice for mount customization other than the gem store. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Woodlink.1863 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 No. First off, I like the new mount skins. I really do. There's at least 5 that I especially want. But according to the math done [here]( ), if I wanted 5 specific ones, I'd need to buy an average of 26 mount adoption licenses to get the ones I want. This is _abysmally_ bad, and the amount of grinding I'd have to do in order to buy that many (10,400 gems!) would leave me drained, burnt out, and never wanting to touch the game again. I really don't want that! >We won’t change the existing license in a way **that would invalidate the investment players have made** Ugh. I can't even properly put into words how much I hate this type of fallacious reasoning. I just want to buy the ones I want, or trade ones I don't want for ones I do. Is that too much to ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silyth.7382 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 The comment didn't say how it would be fixed. We get it you can't take it back cause you'll mess up the people who already got it. We get that you really on micro transactions but $120 to get a skin for the specific mount you like to ride cause the random won't drop the one you use isn't micro. . Also, 2000 gem skins isn't the answer we are looking for. Sure, maybe for the set of 5 like Halloween. It's a set. Individual skins should price like gliders and be available through achievements. The base skin should dye in 4 slots like the others. Will there be a way to get specific skins for the mounts you actually use? Micro transactions should be like what they sound. Smaller amounts $5-$20 at a time to get an in game reward that we like. If you are going the random route at least let us pick the mount. Cause getting only skins for the mount you personally despise is frustrating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burntcrispy.4527 Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 Don't see how there response is much of a response, but more a non response. 400 Gems for a random skin and 2000 for a specific mount (Reforged Warhound) skin come on; I understand wanting to make money, but make it reasonable; It is 500 for a specific glider skin, that is what I am willing to give for a specific mount. I keep looking at these prices, if you change it over to real money, there is no way I would pay that for that item. Over 9600 Gems, $120 dollars for all 30 mount adoption skins is more than the collectors addition of the game. I get the collectors addition each time an expansion is released for the 4000 gems but beyond that I can't afford much and obviously that isn't enough for them, and I doubt anything I have to spend would ever be. I don't believe for a second they need to charge this much to pay for living world updates; But then again I also go with the sell to more people for less each theory, and obviously they go for the more to few (and not just them). Reminds me of the comic with a kid selling lemonade for $1000 dollars a glass, saying he only needs to sell one. I am thankful for the gem exchange; It looks like these game developers don't care if they get any money from me since I just don't have enough to be in there target audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now