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

[Ellisande.5218]

That mount skins were not included in the base Path of Fire game pissed me off and continues to piss me off. There is already a sore lack of content in PoF.

 

Whether paid mount skins come from loot box gambling or forking over $20 isn't the issue I am addressing.

[Ellisande.5218]

> @JaddynnStarr.5201 said:

> *picks up credit card*

>

> *walks to dresser*

>

> *puts credit card in wallet*

>

> *closes wallet*

>

> *starts pre install of Battlefront 2*

>

> *closes forum browser window*

 

It's sad that another game (published by EA no less) relying on loot box sales is seen as a superior alternative to the mount skin lootboxes in GW2.

[Ellisande.5218]

> @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.

 

This is classic buyer's remorse. You are saying outright that you didn't receive value for your spend while failing to accept that you wasted money and know you wasted money which you now regret.

 

If you felt that you had received value for the amount you spent then you wouldn't be feeling so salty towards Anet fixing the problem.

 

If anything, you actually basically said exactly why Anet NEEDS to abolish the current system and move all the mounts into separate purchases.

 

You threw away your money. It is gone. You aren't getting it back. You will never once feel that you got your value for money here and refusing to let Anet fix the problem for other people isn't going to make you better off.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Ellisande.5218 said:

> It's sad that another game (published by EA no less) relying on loot box sales is seen as a superior alternative to the mount skin lootboxes in GW2.

 

EA, at least, took some practical steps to help resolve people's issues with their implementation.

[Sykper.6583]

EA didn't change a thing, they instead also nerfed the rewards by 75% so nothing's actually changed.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Sykper.6583 said:

> EA didn't change a thing, they instead also nerfed the rewards by 75% so nothing's actually changed.

 

From what I understand, they nerfed the story rewards, but not the multiplayer reward, so the idea was that you could 1:1 unlock Iden by completing the story, and that remains true, but it is supposedly faster to unlock characters by farming multiplayer.

[Sykper.6583]

It's still exceptionally bad, especially when apparently refund links were being removed as well, and they changed it to calling their support line.

 

I wouldn't look to EA for inspiration on how to handle rewards.

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

If you go big enough in scope, there's nothing that you can do in the game that won't support the gem store in some way. Because gems for gold exists, anything that you do that increases or circulates wealth in the game contributes to a rising gold:gem ratio, which makes purchasing gems more appealing. If you walk around playing the game, you're creating an environment that players want to play in with your presence, which will generate silver and resources for trade. So long as you make the game a functioning, enjoyable place, then you are contributing to gem store sales in an indirect way.

 

As much as we'd like to talk about how we don't support the decision to make mounts expensive, random, and exclusively from the gem store by refusing to by gems, in the long run it doesn't matter. By merely playing the game, we're contributing to gem store sales via indirect methods.

[Grey Moon.6531]

MO's reply not only did not satisfy me, but made me realise what a rotten state AAA gaming is in. I've already decided not to support 2 games that I wanted to play because of the loot box fiasco, but the whole disease of double charging is really in port taste imho. I've supported GW since beta and brought nearly everything possible apart from missing out on the glowing hands. With GW2 I've avoided the loot boxes apart from the free keys, but I've sunk a lot of cash into bank slots, skins, preordered etc as I've had so much fun with this game.

I've played freemium games before such as Forsaken World, Aion, Blade and Soul, but I go into those games expecting them to try to rinse me dry. I have a general rule is if the game hooks me for at least a month and by hook I mean have fun and not some chase a one off shiny item carrot on the stick scam, I throw 30 quid at it. If I'm playing for more than 1/2 a year I throw another 30 quid on it. Basically if a game gives me "AAA" fun I give it "AAA" cash. GW2 was the only game which I broke that rule and chucked money at it as soon as I saw a shiny in the shop (not BLC, never BLC). I spent way more than 60 quid a year because it never felt like ANet was trying to fleece me. Now I look back at it I think maybe I was wrong all these years...

So since GW2 like nearly everything else wants to chase the freemium/mobile model I will fully support this decision by not spending anymore money on GW2 until they go full freemium. By freemium I mean no more up front cash for extensions, no cash for living story if I missed the deadline. Make every release free as all these freemium games are able to do it. When they have gone truly freemium then I'll start throwing cash via the cash shop buying non gamble for skins to say thank you if the additional content was worth it. You see that is the thing about truly freemium games we can play it and never pay for it. Never understood why a company would risk everything on the investment of just a few "whales", but hey what ever works.

For now I'll keep playing for what I've paid for and when something is locked out by the paywall of an extension I'll move onto another game.

[Weindrasi.3805]

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> > @Weindrasi.3805 said:

> > I honestly don't understand why people are so upset about it. I thought the RNG was fun, myself. It's understandable that some won't like the RNG, but the massive freakout overreaction about it is baffling to me.

>

> First, because gamble boxes are quickly becoming known in gaming as a sleazy way to make more money. Second, because many people were really looking forward to mounts and having skins for them. Now many of those people either can't get skins at all because they refuse to chance wasting their money gambling and not get what they want, or they are against gambling in general, or they do gamble and end up with skins that they either don't like, or can't use because they don't even have a griffon!

>

> Plenty of reasons to be upset.

>

 

The gaming community likes to pick at things and overreact.

I was looking forward to mount skins too. And I'd really like to have some of the available mount skins. But if I don't get them, it's still just a game, and I can still enjoy myself with a different mount.

Seems to me the whole uproar is due to a "I want GRATIFICATION RIGHT NOW!" mentality, combined with people bandwagoning on the current gaming community hype. Regardless of the ultimate outcome, life will go on, Guild Wars 2 will get old, the community will find the next game or thing to gripe about. And so on, and so on.

[Matick.4132]

> @Weindrasi.3805 said:

 

> The gaming community likes to pick at things and overreact.

> I was looking forward to mount skins too. And I'd really like to have some of the available mount skins. But if I don't get them, it's still just a game, and I can still enjoy myself with a different mount.

> Seems to me the whole uproar is due to a "I want GRATIFICATION RIGHT NOW!" mentality, combined with people bandwagoning on the current gaming community hype. Regardless of the ultimate outcome, life will go on, Guild Wars 2 will get old, the community will find the next game or thing to gripe about. And so on, and so on.

 

Well this is true to some degree, but it's also distracting from the real point of this: disrespect and honesty.

It's not about 'I WANT THIS RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE... DUH!", **it's about the exploitation of players and grinding on gambling addiction.**

 

Next to this, it's about 'not giving a fuss about' to those players who – to some degree – helped making this game become so big and great. And you don't have to ask google what a game without the players would look like, now do you?

 

This whole debate about _'how can XYZ survive without the gemstore'_ is polluted, diluted and filled with a lotta whataboutism.

Ask yourself if it really is ok if someone already paid the full extra of a 'premium super-duper master fan-edition' on whatever AAA title, bought all the expansions (also in the super-duper fan-edition), maybe threw in a good amount of extra cash to buy some extra skins (because they're gorgeous and you also appreciate the artists), to then prey on these players real world gold bags and make them gamble the hell outta them, if they wanna proceed?!

(and YES, we've been there, the endgame to a high degree today is all about better skins and stuff. So this IS proceeding in this world)

 

I think no. Not at all.

 

Have a gemstore, but make it equal to playing hard and achieving something (like finishing all the dungeons etc. so you get Gems or a mount skin for example). I don't mind buying these cool action figures for my most beloved games and films, so I equally don't mind to buy some cool things in-game, but only with the big IF: they aren't the only way of getting something. And with the mounts today, it just isn't possible!

[Menadena.7482]

Has anyone heard from anet over this since this joke of an 'answer'?

[diamondgirl.6315]

I'm fine with it. They tried a thing, the thing had very mixed popularity, so instead they are moving in the future to a thing a lot of us indicated we would like better. I think it was a very reasonable response. I was one of the people who stated that I would be happy to spend 700 gems on a mount that I wanted instead of 400 on a random one I might not use, and I stand by that. They can have my money, I just want to be able to spend it on something I want.

[hestiansun.1425]

> @Matick.4132 said:

> Well this is true to some degree, but it's also distracting from the real point of this: disrespect and honesty.

> It's not about 'I WANT THIS RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE... DUH!", **it's about the exploitation of players and grinding on gambling addiction.**

 

I think this is a very salient point to bring up, because I think it does identify a trend on the part of anet that goes beyond just the gem store loot boxes.

There were always some elements of gambling in GW2 - unidentified dyes, Black Lion Chests, festival bags, mystic forge, clovers, etc.

 

But with the introduction of Path of Fire, we've seen a few things:

1. The Ecto gambler, previously somewhat hidden away on the map on Lion's Arch with no real explanation of what the map icon indicated, has been moved front and center to the main city of the expansion. And as if that is not enough, another one is placed in the special access place that deluxe version folks got.

2. Loot, ACTUAL GAME LOOT, is now a gamble-able commodity with the introduction of the Pieces of Unidentified Gear. Players can purchase the items looted by other players to open, gambling on whether or not they get a good item. I'm not sure how many people do it, and what the trade volume is for these items, but since the price seems to be hovering at around three times the average price of an item of the standard rarity it offers, it seems people are inclined to do it.

3. The direct RNG of high cost skins. Yes, there was some RNG involved before when you were opening BLC and festival bags, but that was mitigated to an extent by the existence of the scraps and tickets that you COULD use to select something that you wanted. But now we have a 400 gem RNG skin.

 

I don't think you need a lot of tinfoil on your head to start to think that there may be some sort of focused effort on the part of anet to make more financial gain off the gambling habits of its players. Certainly, increasing the visibility of the ecto gambler can only be identified as an effort to increase the number of players in the game that are gambling.

 

Just something to think about, for those of you who are choosing to call anyone who expresses dissatisfaction with this process "entitled". (Although I'd go so far as to say that if someone is paying money for something, it's not necessarily unfair for them to feel "entitled" to get what they want, within reason.)

[Devilman.1532]

It was a standard canned BS PR response that addressed nothing and was insulting the community as whole

 

[fizzypetal.7936]

Once the skin is unlocked and added to a player's wardrobe, it can't be removed. Unfortunately in this situation ArenaNet are in a rock and hard place - can't undo what has been done without making an even bigger mess and causing a different sort of backlash for who knows how long. Better to remain silent then to bend to pressure and make statements that later on down the road have to be rescinded.

 

I understand MOs statement; I would have liked more information but I prefer they take the time they need to come up with a plan that is equitable to both ArenaNet & GW2 players. At the end of the day I think we as players want more choice and value for money - the latter varying from one person to the next. The choice we were given with the mount skin loot boxes I think for many signalled a shift into how skins as a whole might later be made available. They'll either be really expensive or locked behind RNG. Speaking only for myself, expensive vs RNG are not good choices for me. I understand those choices may be acceptable to others and I don't have an issue with that.

 

I think the artwork behind many of the skins speaks well as to the talent the game designers possess and my unwillingness to either buy a chance to acquire a skin I really want or to pay a premium for 1 epic skin isn't meant to be a negative commentary on their worth. For me it is about what the item is. It is a cosmetic and to be fair, I'm not really looking at my mount when I'm travelling, I'm looking at where I'm going.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @hestiansun.1425 said:

> 2. Loot, ACTUAL GAME LOOT, is now a gamble-able commodity with the introduction of the Pieces of Unidentified Gear. Players can purchase the items looted by other players to open, gambling on whether or not they get a good item. I'm not sure how many people do it, and what the trade volume is for these items, but since the price seems to be hovering at around three times the average price of an item of the standard rarity it offers, it seems people are inclined to do it.

 

Meh, that isn't really new. You've always been able to buy loot bags off the TP and open them, and I'm not sure about recently but years ago that was considered a reasonable economic activity, buying the bags and hoping to salvage the content for valued materials. The Unidentified Items are just more focused in what you get. I'm not really bothered by the simulated gambling of purely in-game elements, just with the real money gambling in the gem store.

 

[Djinn.9245]

> @Weindrasi.3805 said:

> > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > > @Weindrasi.3805 said:

> > > I honestly don't understand why people are so upset about it. I thought the RNG was fun, myself. It's understandable that some won't like the RNG, but the massive freakout overreaction about it is baffling to me.

> >

> > First, because gamble boxes are quickly becoming known in gaming as a sleazy way to make more money. Second, because many people were really looking forward to mounts and having skins for them. Now many of those people either can't get skins at all because they refuse to chance wasting their money gambling and not get what they want, or they are against gambling in general, or they do gamble and end up with skins that they either don't like, or can't use because they don't even have a griffon!

> >

> > Plenty of reasons to be upset.

> >

>

> The gaming community likes to pick at things and overreact.

 

I don't think that calmly explaining what you don't like about something is "overreacting", it is just "reacting". Certainly there were some people who said some pretty over-the-top things, but there are people who say that type of thing about pretty much anything. (It's the internet.) So those types of comments can't be pinned solely on the mount skin reaction.

 

 

[Djinn.9245]

> @hestiansun.1425 said:

> I don't think you need a lot of tinfoil on your head to start to think that there may be some sort of focused effort on the part of anet to make more financial gain off the gambling habits of its players.

 

Not just make more financial gain off the gambling habits, since I don't have a gambling habit, but trying to CREATE gambling habits in their players by not offering things like mount skins in any other (reasonable) way than a gamble box!

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> Once the skin is unlocked and added to a player's wardrobe, it can't be removed. Unfortunately in this situation ArenaNet are in a rock and hard place - can't undo what has been done without making an even bigger mess and causing a different sort of backlash for who knows how long. Better to remain silent then to bend to pressure and make statements that later on down the road have to be rescinded.

 

That's simply not true. Try buying one then charge back what you paid for the gems and watch how fast they take it away.

[Leo G.4501]

> @Matick.4132 said:

 

> Well this is true to some degree, but it's also distracting from the real point of this: disrespect and honesty.

> It's not about 'I WANT THIS RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE... DUH!", **it's about the exploitation of players and grinding on gambling addiction.**

>

> Next to this, it's about 'not giving a fuss about' to those players who – to some degree – helped making this game become so big and great. And you don't have to ask google what a game without the players would look like, now do you?

>

 

I don't think you really have to worry about a "game without the players". You should honestly thank your lucky stars that Wildstar exists because had it not, GW2 would likely be in the crosshairs for being the lowest earner in NCSofts's roster...With the influx of gaming moving toward MOBAs and arena shooters, likely NCSoft will be putting more bucks into their development and marketing. Sure Lineage 2 is nearly 15 years old but look how much more it makes!

 

In a year or so, you may be looking back and saying "I wish there were more ways to support GW2 so it could continue" just like the many many diehards thought about City of Heroes.

 

 

 

[Substance E.4852]

> @Weindrasi.3805 said:

> > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > > @Weindrasi.3805 said:

> > > I honestly don't understand why people are so upset about it. I thought the RNG was fun, myself. It's understandable that some won't like the RNG, but the massive freakout overreaction about it is baffling to me.

> >

> > First, because gamble boxes are quickly becoming known in gaming as a sleazy way to make more money. Second, because many people were really looking forward to mounts and having skins for them. Now many of those people either can't get skins at all because they refuse to chance wasting their money gambling and not get what they want, or they are against gambling in general, or they do gamble and end up with skins that they either don't like, or can't use because they don't even have a griffon!

> >

> > Plenty of reasons to be upset.

> >

>

> The gaming community likes to pick at things and overreact.

> I was looking forward to mount skins too. And I'd really like to have some of the available mount skins. But if I don't get them, it's still just a game, and I can still enjoy myself with a different mount.

> Seems to me the whole uproar is due to a "I want GRATIFICATION RIGHT NOW!" mentality, combined with people bandwagoning on the current gaming community hype. Regardless of the ultimate outcome, life will go on, Guild Wars 2 will get old, the community will find the next game or thing to gripe about. And so on, and so on.

 

Wanting to be satisfied with a purchase and not feel swindled is not entitlement nor is it "demanding instant gratification".

 

There's probably several reason why you don't understand the issue but suffice to say that just because you don't, doesn't mean it's suddenly invalidated for others.

[Nausicca.6038]

Mount skins are super popular in game. I guess people just don't give a shit about all this drama ?

[BunjiKugashira.9754]

> @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> > @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> > Once the skin is unlocked and added to a player's wardrobe, it can't be removed. Unfortunately in this situation ArenaNet are in a rock and hard place - can't undo what has been done without making an even bigger mess and causing a different sort of backlash for who knows how long. Better to remain silent then to bend to pressure and make statements that later on down the road have to be rescinded.

>

> That's simply not true. Try buying one then charge back what you paid for the gems and watch how fast they take it away.

 

> @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> > @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> > Once the skin is unlocked and added to a player's wardrobe, it can't be removed. Unfortunately in this situation ArenaNet are in a rock and hard place - can't undo what has been done without making an even bigger mess and causing a different sort of backlash for who knows how long. Better to remain silent then to bend to pressure and make statements that later on down the road have to be rescinded.

>

> That's simply not true. Try buying one then charge back what you paid for the gems and watch how fast they take it away.

 

In that case ANet wouldn't just take away the skins, they would take away the whole account. ANet's payment provider is very strict when it comes to charge backs. Which is why buying stolen gem codes from shady market places is guaranteed to get you banned for good, but that's a different topic.

 

The point is: locking stuff that has been unlocked is almost impossible. If ANet wanted to release the 30 skins in a non-RNG way they would need to do so in a way that doesn't invalidate the existing purchases. Since it takes on average 6000 gems to get a specific skin, I can't see ANet offering direct purchases for much less than that. Which is really a shame, because that means ANet has created an irrepearable mess that will continue to seep bad press for a considerable time to come. Downplaying the problem with pretty PR speeches is only going to help so much.

[fizzypetal.7936]

> @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> > @fizzypetal.7936 said:

> > Once the skin is unlocked and added to a player's wardrobe, it can't be removed. Unfortunately in this situation ArenaNet are in a rock and hard place - can't undo what has been done without making an even bigger mess and causing a different sort of backlash for who knows how long. Better to remain silent then to bend to pressure and make statements that later on down the road have to be rescinded.

>

> That's simply not true. Try buying one then charge back what you paid for the gems and watch how fast they take it away.

 

"Once the skin is unlocked and added to a player's wardrobe, it can't be removed." I had that direct from an ArenaNet GM when discussing a ticket. Maybe there is a different process when people do charge backs - have you done a charge back or were you speculating?