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

[BLIKSEM DOOD.2176]

NO i dont have money to throw away - if i spend money on something - i want the choice of what i get - very upset

[Aetheldrake.6395]

legally, they have to give this sort of answer. otherwise everything will just blow up worse than you could possibly imagine.

 

they have to say things legally first, before anything else, they have to be legally and grammatically polite

 

so suck it up buttercups. as you saw, your greedy intimidation attempts didnt really work to get free stuff

 

more people were fine or dont care with how they did it, than people who are upset. and most of the people that arent upset dont go here to talk about it, cuz guess what? they arent upset, so they wont go raging on a forum lol

[Aetheldrake.6395]

also, think of it more like those quarter machines at stores where you dont know whats gonna come out of the little plastic bubble

 

if everyone could just spend 5 dollars and get the single thing they want, the game would be dead in no time, or would become nothing but fancy skins because thats their only money income. which means actual important things wont get fixed in nearly as much time

 

on top of that, a lot of these things arent so easy to create. it is NOT easy to create a beautiful image that has to be constantly adjusted to a 3d model. a model that changes sizes hundreds of times depending on character race, size options, and creation in general

 

then on top of that, a lot of these have special effects which ALSO change size depending on everything above

 

now to put it all together in a model that has MANY different actions and interactions, that happen nearly seamlessly, and so far has little to no glitches from what ive heard/seen, is RATHER EXPENSIVE to have done.

 

i mean, i dont see anyone except me ranting about prices of lunchables (shush, theyre a delicious example) basically doubling in the span of apparently less than a few months, and thats because clearly one of the food stuffs used in them went up in price because of something happening that i dont know of

 

doesnt mean im gonna try to get everyone to destroy the lunchables industry just because i dont want to pay 2dollars vs 1dollar(last year)

 

and that is how a lot of you sound. you dont know whats going on with Anet. cash shop items get more expensive because a lot of things were made at once, but arent easily acquired, so they have to charge a significant amount to cover all of the expenses to create said items (over so much time because odds are only a few people will buy and buy until they get what they want)

 

and i think people probably wouldnt freak out if they werent told how many skins existed, and they werent given the option to buy all of them at once (at a 25% discount vs buying them all individually, mind you)

 

basically, supply and demand. the demand and supply was both high

 

people demanded skins like crazy, so Anet supplied skins like crazy. thus there are a lot of skins, and they arent cheap

 

over time as the demand goes down, the supply will still be plentiful as we have 35 skins and only 5 mounts, and so prices will eventually go down once things settle and less people buy. the prices go down in an attempt to make sales

 

like video games and holiday season (which is coming up so people should be able to understand)

 

i want the new .hack//gu remake, but im waiting until black friday because i can get it at less than 50 dollars (base price) brand new.

 

sure i can buy it now, but since i have to wait before i get a ps4 (also on black friday) it will cost less in the future

 

 

TL;DR

 

good sales come to those who wait

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @Aetheldrake.6395 said:

>

> on top of that, a lot of these things arent so easy to create. it is NOT easy to create a beautiful image that has to be constantly adjusted to a 3d model. a model that changes sizes hundreds of times depending on character race, size options, and creation in general

 

A mount skin needs to fit a single frame (not five races, with female versions of three of them). Mounts have way fewer animations than characters do. Outfits are 700 gems. If ANet holds true to the Anchoring Effect price of the fiery goat, individual mount skins may be nearly three times as much as outfits. Difficulty in creating the mount skin is not the driving factor in the pricing.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

 

 

> @"Mike O Brien.4613" said:

>

> 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.

 

Can you point out where he said what you believe he said? I'm having trouble seeing it. Italics added by me.

[Gop.8713]

Totally satisfied with the response, though I considered it a pretty minor issue to start with. It's completely optional cosmetic content, so if I don't like the price I just won't buy it -- and I don't so I won't -- so no harm no foul . . .

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Aetheldrake.6395 said:

> also, think of it more like those quarter machines at stores where you dont know whats gonna come out of the little plastic bubble

>

> if everyone could just spend 5 dollars and get the single thing they want, the game would be dead in no time, or would become nothing but fancy skins because thats their only money income. which means actual important things wont get fixed in nearly as much time

 

Yes, those are called "gacha machines." There are games like that. One should not seek to emulate those games, because they are cruel and borderline sadistic.

 

>on top of that, a lot of these things arent so easy to create. it is NOT easy to create a beautiful image that has to be constantly adjusted to a 3d model. a model that changes sizes hundreds of times depending on character race, size options, and creation in general

 

I totally agree that the models in question take a lot of work to produce, and they should be paid fairly for producing them. There is no need for a gambling-box to make that happen. Also, the "size changing" thing is a non-issue, the mounts do not need to be remotely as adaptable as armor skins. The mounts just have to scale evenly based on the size of the rider, as opposed to armor which needs to scale in different directions without clipping based on the characters' proportions. Scaling an object in 3D evenly is effortless.

 

>and i think people probably wouldnt freak out if they werent told how many skins existed, and they werent given the option to buy all of them at once (at a 25% discount vs buying them all individually, mind you)

 

No, they would freak out the instant that they saw a skin that they liked (which would be day one thanks to Dulfy), and yet knew that the only way they could get it was random chance. Nothing else mattered.

 

>people demanded skins like crazy, so Anet supplied skins like crazy. thus there are a lot of skins, and they arent cheap

 

That's. . . not accurate. ANet did not produce these skins in response to demand, the demand didn't start until about a month ago, three tops. Most of these skins were likely in production six months ago or more. They produced these skins because they assumed there would be a demand for them.

 

>over time as the demand goes down, the supply will still be plentiful as we have 35 skins and only 5 mounts, and so prices will eventually go down once things settle and less people buy. the prices go down in an attempt to make sales

 

The price will actually go up first when they remove the 9600 deal, and while they might offer an eventual sale on the gamble boxes, they have not indicated that they will be offering alternate methods, so even if they halve the price of the gamble boxes, it would still take $75 to guarantee any one specific skin. That's too much for a skin.

 

>i want the new .hack//gu remake, but im waiting until black friday because i can get it at less than 50 dollars (base price) brand new.

 

Ok, fair enough, but what if you couldn't buy .hack//gu directly? What if the only way to get it was to give Steam $25, and then they would randomly give you that, or one of 29 other games, some in genres that you don't even play? Now maybe for Black Friday they offer you a better deal, only $10 for that random box, would you pull on it then, or would you give up on the idea of owning .hack//gu?

 

 

 

 

[Devata.6589]

> @Vayne.8563 said:

> The numbers are completely irrelevant to me.

 

That is the problem, the numbers are relevant, but they are not relevant to you.

 

> They're still selling some of their most popular mounts, ie the mounts everybody wants in the cash shop

 

Great, again one of those statements that you cannot know. If anybody else would make a claim like that, you would say, “You cannot prove that”.

 

>and people still buy them

 

I do expect some people to buy them yes. Not sure how that is relevant. Nobody is saying people are not buying them. If nobody did, companies would not put anything in a cash-shop. In a way, you could say that people buying them are more of a problem then companies who act upon that.

 

Anyway, it is interesting to compare this with the previous statements about how they are the most popular and people buy them. You initially referred to WoW and we do have some information about that. We know the 11 mounts they sell, and we know +- what percentage of the players owns them http://www.worldofwargraphs.com/global-stats/mounts . Turns out the most popular one is owned by 19,1% and on average they are owned by 13,7% of the players.

I still do not know how this is relevant, but I figured it would be interesting to have a look at those numbers.

 

 

>But unlike me, you ignore the ENTIRE REST OF THE INDUSTRY to make your pet point which you believe is true

 

I do not ignore it, I just say it's not good what they are doing. The fact that an industry does something does not mean it is good for me as a consumer. It means (for now) they can get away with it and it's profitable enough for them. I am not denying any of those things.

 

>and like two other people. Most others over the years have not only not agreed with you but strenuously have disagreed.

 

Most of the people left. Without knowing exactly why they left and in what scenario they would not have left it's hard to say if what I say is a big factor or not. But it's very clear that currently the argument "but it's cosmetics" does not seem to be popular anymore. So at that part it does seem that by now most people are not disagreeing with me anymore. Not about that anyway. Not only in the GW2 community, but in the game-community as a total.

 

> 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

 

That was not the bottom-line for me. But when you want to get into the price, it's not as simple as saying the price is $5,-. This depends on the person. For somebody who wants them all it's like $4 per mount, but your required to buy them all for $120,- If you just want one the average price is much higher then $4 because you will have to buy Mount Adoption Licenses for 400 gems or 10 for 3400 until you have the one you like. You can calculate what would be the exact average price, but it's higher then the $25,- you compared it to.

 

Getting the one mount you can buy for 2000 gems is also more expensive then $25,-.

 

These are the true numbers. But then again, the numbers might not be relevant to you.

 

Anyway, the price is not what I talked about. Even if they sold it for $0,01. It would still take it out of the game, what is what I consider the problem, not the price (While I do agree it's extremely high (3 mounts cost more then a full game / expansion that should include many mounts)).

 

> 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.

 

"People keep saying this game is greedy", that is not what I am saying. But no, cash grabbing might not mean income go's up over a longer time. It will make sure there are spikes of income when a grabbing-approach is implemented, and the mounts did create such a spike. Have a look here: http://www.gw2spidy.com/gem

At release of the mount pack you can see a spike, as a result of gem-sales. So the increase of income you are looking for as proof of cash-grabbing is in fact there. What I am saying is that these practices alienate people what results in dropping results-overtime. We also have numbers showing a decrease of income overtime. This trend can be seen from the beginning, also when the game was not 5 years old. So if anything, the numbers again are there. But the numbers might be completely irrelevant to you.

[Eloc Freidon.5692]

I'd rather have gotten no response than this "we know better" message talking down to us.

[Randulf.7614]

> @"Eloc Freidon.5692" said:

> I'd rather have gotten no response than this "we know better" message talking down to us.

 

I'm not. A "no response" is how Lotro are approaching the same situation with the added problem of ignoring the community and carrying on regardless. Whilst I get the criticism against Mike's statement, he did at least acknowledge the situation and put steps in to mitigate it. Could he have gone further? Yeah I think that's a fair call, but I think it would have been way worse to have stayed silent.

[hestiansun.1425]

I've been reflecting on this a lot, and trying to think of how they can fix things from a PR standpoint without hurting their business. I think their best approach really is to offer a gem refund option for those who availed themselves of this method of release. Then they don't have to worry about invalidating anyone's "investment", and can do a soft reboot of how they want to release them.

 

It would take some of the anger away from the players who felt they threw real world or in game gold away, and it wouldn't actually cost them much of anything because it's still the game's funny money. Sure, it would add some more gems into the economy, but I doubt that would have much of an impact on things - the cash --> gem economy is still closed more or less. People who were going to buy gems with cash will still do it, and it would have a minimal impact I would think if any on the gold prices for gems.

 

Companies that deal in micro transactions do this ALL THE TIME when they make a major mistake. It restores goodwill to the playerbase (because in many cases, the players get back what they put in - you may have a few players who plopped down real cash for gems just for the mounts who may still be annoyed, but I think most players would find a good use to a gem refund on something else). Costs them nothing.

 

That's one of the beauties of having a currency that means nothing to anyone outside of the context of your game, and that you have complete control over.

 

So how about you guys consider that? I know it may sound like you are "buying off" the angry and upset people - but you're a business, and sometimes money (or in this case, gems) talk.

 

You had a horrible idea for how to distribute these, a large amount of the playerbase is up in arms. If you feel your method of fixing it is restricted by the investment of those who already bought in - give it back to them. Start over.

 

Maybe take some of the excellent ideas put forth in these threads and use them to rework your distribution model for these things.

[Griever.8150]

They definitively didn't go as far as i wished (rework of that system entirely) but at least they acknowledged that it was a mistake and that they screwed up. Not something a lot of game companies are capable of doing nowadays.

[Djinn.9245]

> @Randulf.7614 said:

> > @"Eloc Freidon.5692" said:

> > I'd rather have gotten no response than this "we know better" message talking down to us.

>

> I'm not. A "no response" is how Lotro are approaching the same situation with the added problem of ignoring the community and carrying on regardless. Whilst I get the criticism against Mike's statement, he did at least acknowledge the situation and put steps in to mitigate it. Could he have gone further? Yeah I think that's a fair call, but I think it would have been way worse to have stayed silent.

 

Did he put in steps to mitigate it? All he said was that they wouldn't add any mounts to the existing gamble box. Of course we don't know if they actually planned to add any more mounts anyway.

[JVJD.4912]

After seeing EA Reddit's fiasco, i hope this anti consumer practices ends

[Djinn.9245]

> @Griever.8150 said:

> They definitively didn't go as far as i wished (rework of that system entirely) but at least they acknowledged that it was a mistake and that they screwed up. Not something a lot of game companies capable of doing nowadays.

 

I don't see this admission at all. Mike says they "made some missteps" and then says that the missteps are:

-Anet should have anticipated the alarm over the random element. This doesn't mean that they think they shouldn't have added the gamble box, just that Anet didn't anticipate the reaction.

-Releasing the majority of skins was easy to perceive as intentionally channeling us toward randomization. I'm not sure how Anet could be _unintentionally_ channeling us toward randomization unless they intended to release some additional skins outside of the gamble box that didn't get released by mistake which Mike could have said if it was the case.

-The gamble box is a large set which could be perceived by the players as decreasing our odds of receiving the skin we want. Since it actually **IS** decreasing our odds of receiving the skin we want, I really don't understand why Mike made this point at all.

 

**So the "missteps" are about THE PLAYERS' reaction and THE PLAYERS' perceptions. Not admitting that Anet did anything wrong.**

 

> @"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:...

 

 

[jheryn.8390]

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> > @Griever.8150 said:

> > They definitively didn't go as far as i wished (rework of that system entirely) but at least they acknowledged that it was a mistake and that they screwed up. Not something a lot of game companies capable of doing nowadays.

>

> I don't see this admission at all. Mike says they "made some missteps" and then says that the missteps are:

> -Anet should have anticipated the alarm over the random element. This doesn't mean that they think they shouldn't have added the gamble box, just that Anet didn't anticipate the reaction.

> -Releasing the majority of skins was easy to perceive as intentionally channeling us toward randomization. I'm not sure how Anet could be _unintentionally_ channeling us toward randomization unless they intended to release some additional skins outside of the gamble box that didn't get released by mistake which Mike could have said if it was the case.

> -The gamble box is a large set which could be perceived by the players as decreasing our odds of receiving the skin we want. Since it actually **IS** decreasing our odds of receiving the skin we want, I really don't understand why Mike made this point at all.

>

> **So the "missteps" are about THE PLAYERS' reaction and THE PLAYERS' perceptions. Not admitting that Anet did anything wrong.**

>

As was noted in an earlier post, this is classic M.O.'s way to address situations like this. It is as close to an admission as you are going to get.

 

It also lends to semantics. Missteps vs Mistakes. It was probably hard for him even to say they made a misstep. Some people find it nearly impossible to admit to mistakes, failures, and being wrong.

 

Sometimes, with some people, we have to read between the lines.

[Cragga the Eighty Third.60]

The main reason I wanted a skin--any skin--was that I was tired of my raptor looking like every-single-one else's raptor. Anet made the point that they offered the skins the way they did to encourage variety. I am very much on board with that. Though, if that was the case, I think they ought to have held out the sparkly ones for separate sale. I think a lot of the rage is the people who only want the flashy model. Those of use who just wanted color and variety would still have bought skins, at that nice, reasonable price.

I still wish they would divide the skins into mount type, though.

[Zakka.2153]

> @"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

> The main reason I wanted a skin--any skin--was that I was tired of my raptor looking like every-single-one else's raptor. Anet made the point that they offered the skins the way they did to encourage variety. I am very much on board with that. Though, if that was the case, I think they ought to have held out the sparkly ones for separate sale. I think a lot of the rage is the people who only want the flashy model. Those of use who just wanted color and variety would still have bought skins, at that nice, reasonable price.

> I still wish they would divide the skins into mount type, though.

 

I honestly just want four dye channels, no flashy on the default skin. But nope everything has to be nickeled and dimed anymore.

[Sir Vincent III.1286]

The main issue here is that many players who didn't have the necessary experience to understand the gaming industry as a whole. All they know and ever played is GW2. This creates a limited perception without fully understanding why ArenaNet made the decision they made. Since I have been playing other MMOs, I know for a fact that ArenaNet is practically giving these mount skins away. Let's look at an example.

 

In WoW, I can get a lot of mounts in game. Most of the mounts are simply recolored (e.g. Red horse vs Brown Horse). Using that as the tool for comparison, every single dye that I have unlocked in GW2 is comparable to a Mount in WoW ---------- let that one sink in ----------- so if anyone wants to count the number of mounts in WoW, they also need to count the recolored skins in GW2.

 

Other MMOs don't even allow players to recolor their mounts, so when I get a certain Mount, someone else can get the same exact Mount with the same color. Before these mount skins, the possibility of someone else using the same color is higher, in fact, I did found someone colored their griffon with the same color. Now that this skin is available, I can create my very own color combination giving my mount further unique personality. The chances of someone using the same colors on the same dye slot is very slim, probably none.

 

The value of the skin, IMO, is greater than what they are asking for. It might have been a marketing failure where they didn't introduce the mount properly (you have to sell these things) but it surely not a design failure. Yes it is random and it might not be the skin I want, but the quality of the skin is well worth more than 400 gems. Also, comparing the cost of the skin to the cost of the expansion is not fair either. I'm going to use WoW again here. They sell an expansion for $40, yet each player pays at least $12 a month in sub fees which adds up to $144 a year for a total of $184 in a year. This amount of money is enough to create new contents in WoW. Now we look at GW2, they sold $40 expansion and offer a $120 bundle to unlock all mount skins. As someone with an understanding of the gaming industry and how loot boxes are rampant nowadays, GW2's mount adoption is not even close to being called a loot box. BLC is a loot box, mount adoption is not and it's important that people should understand the difference. Sure, I can't afford the bundle since I don't have a large amount of disposable income lying around, but I can surely afford $10, even $20, a month to take my chances for a now mount skin.

 

For ArenaNet to continue developing GW2, they need to earn money somehow. Since they do not charge subscription fees, it is not unfair if they offer the skin in a random adoption system. Even if I don't get what I want, these skins are amazing. It is unfortunate to see other players find that MO's response is unsatisfactory but for me, I see a leader who stood up for his people. I am satisfied with his response and I wouldn't want it any other way.

[zealex.9410]

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> It was not an answer to any of our feedback/criticism.

>

> It was a clichéd defense of loot box gambling, with all the tired ol' non-excuses such as "Player freedom!" and "Diversity!"

 

players: "we hate rng"

Anet: "we thought this would be cool for xyz but we realise it happened in a bad period" "therefor the next mount packs will not be full of rng"

[Samarak.7519]

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > @Eltiana.9420 said:

> > > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > > > @Haleydawn.3764 said:

> > > > > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > > > > > @Haleydawn.3764 said:

> > > > > >Stuff

> > > > >

> > > > > So many clichéd and stupid apologetics for loot box gambling I don't even know where to begin...

> > > >

> > > > Back to the topic of 'were you satisfied with Anets answer about Mount Adoption Licence?', **What more could be added on to MO's post?** They admitted they were wrong, and justified why they thought they were right, and plan to not put the next lot into RNG boxes. What more could you actually want that wouldn't devalue any players that are ok with the licence and have bought it?

> > >

> > > Easy. You remove the old Licenses from the Gemstore and add new ones with identical pricing.

> > >

> > > Only these open up a window that lets you choose a skin instead.

> > >

> > > As compensation, players who have already bought the gambling ones will recieve a free non-gambling License at a 1:1-ratio.

> > >

> > > It is not rocket surgery.

> >

> > What about people who bought over 15 of them?

>

> They end up with a few spare new Licenses, but they'd still be able to round out their collection for "free".

 

No. For someone like me who impulsively bought the whole pack that devalues my purchase. My reasoning is I avoided the RNG by just buying them all. If your option had been available I wouldn't have bought them all. Maybe for higher pricing, but identical? That would be shitty for them to do for players who support them with their cosmetic items like do.

[hestiansun.1425]

> @Zakka.2153 said:

> > @"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

> > The main reason I wanted a skin--any skin--was that I was tired of my raptor looking like every-single-one else's raptor. Anet made the point that they offered the skins the way they did to encourage variety. I am very much on board with that. Though, if that was the case, I think they ought to have held out the sparkly ones for separate sale. I think a lot of the rage is the people who only want the flashy model. Those of use who just wanted color and variety would still have bought skins, at that nice, reasonable price.

> > I still wish they would divide the skins into mount type, though.

>

> I honestly just want four dye channels, no flashy on the default skin. But nope everything has to be nickeled and dimed anymore.

 

As noted before, that's all I wanted too.

 

I bought 9 licenses before running out of gems. I still don't have four dye channels on each mount.

But at least now enough people have unique looking mounts that my plain one that used to look like everyone else is no longer that common. :expressionless:

 

[Samarak.7519]

> @Nikal.4921 said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > No. I appreciate that they at least said something, but it doesn't actually fix anything. Indicating that they might do better in future (they didn't actually promise or anything) is a step in the right direction, but they ***_***NEED a solution that involves making the CURRENT assortment of skins available to players in a fair, non-RNG, non exploitative manner***_***. If they release new skins in a better way later, that's great and all, but if one of the *current* skins is one that you want most, that isn't helping anything. I will not be buying ANY mount skins, even if they release them in a better way, until they resolve THESE mount skins.

> That is one of the shames of this- so many assets forever out of reach of those who aren't aren't willing or can't spend up to $120. I was hoping for a solution to this.

 

Only way for that to happen fairly is for them to refund players who bought them originally and let them keep the skins. It would show support for the big spenders, while allowing people to get those locked skins.

[Fig.8257]

I feel like the community ruined a potential good thing since Anet didn't have a choice but to discontinue the licences. As I've said before they were not predatory or mandatory and as long as they were not the ONLY way skins were released they would have provided multiple options for acquiring new skins. They could have released them on a much slower cadence then the other skins as it would've been 30 or so per set, maybe once or twice a year, or they could have decided on releasing less mounts so the odds would not be so bad for the people who need to have a specific skin for minimum cost. While releasing other mounts via bundle or something. But hey enjoy your 2,000 gem mounts

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @Samarak.7519 said:

> > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > > @Eltiana.9420 said:

> > > > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > > > > @Haleydawn.3764 said:

> > > > > > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > > > > > > @Haleydawn.3764 said:

> > > > > > >Stuff

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So many clichéd and stupid apologetics for loot box gambling I don't even know where to begin...

> > > > >

> > > > > Back to the topic of 'were you satisfied with Anets answer about Mount Adoption Licence?', **What more could be added on to MO's post?** They admitted they were wrong, and justified why they thought they were right, and plan to not put the next lot into RNG boxes. What more could you actually want that wouldn't devalue any players that are ok with the licence and have bought it?

> > > >

> > > > Easy. You remove the old Licenses from the Gemstore and add new ones with identical pricing.

> > > >

> > > > Only these open up a window that lets you choose a skin instead.

> > > >

> > > > As compensation, players who have already bought the gambling ones will recieve a free non-gambling License at a 1:1-ratio.

> > > >

> > > > It is not rocket surgery.

> > >

> > > What about people who bought over 15 of them?

> >

> > They end up with a few spare new Licenses, but they'd still be able to round out their collection for "free".

>

> No. For someone like me who impulsively bought the whole pack that devalues my purchase. My reasoning is I avoided the RNG by just buying them all. If your option had been available I wouldn't have bought them all. Maybe for higher pricing, but identical? That would be kitten for them to do for players who support them with their cosmetic items like do.

 

How does it devalue your purchase? If you wanted all the skins you got them all, and for the same price each. If they undo this properly and just refund the gems and let people reuse them you will get what you wanted in the first place.