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

[Arcadio.6875]

Problems with the statement:

 

-Attempts to justify the loot boxes as pro-consumer and downplays the reasons why people hate them.

-No changes to the current situation.

-Leaves room for more RNG skins in the future. "...our next planned mount skin releases..." (what about after that?) "We will not add any skins to the currently available Adoption License..." (so another loot box with a different set of skins is possible?)

-Does not address the problem of lacking in-game rewards.

 

It's a typical PR response of "We're sorry you're mad about this, but you're wrong and we're awesome."

[Deimos.4263]

I love this community and I feel RNG is a very poor road to tread. No point re-hashing how to fix things at this point though, as they've made their decision. It's been a real challenge to come up with the right answer for me personally.

 

I would say roughly half of the mounts are worth 400 gems, and half 800 gems. That averages out conveniently to 600 apiece. While I would call the premium jackal skin overpriced, I can say I'd grudgingly pay that much. So that comes to 20,000 gems all-in, or $250 USD before any discount. Right now, I could snap it all up for 11,600 gems ($145 USD). 42% off sounds great, right? Decent bundled savings.

 

But I don't need the discount. I don't buy all this stuff because it's on sale. I buy it to feel good about supporting the community while working on my fashion wars collections. It's been said countless times that these are cosmetic items and that they are optional. What is not optional is the feeling good part.

 

Now I won't say anything rash like I'll never buy from the gem store again, or that I'm going to remove my account or delete the game. I'm going to be a lot more selective about what I purchase now and that equates to less revenue from me. Unless there's another method of acquisition down the road, I'll have a permanent hole in my mount skins collection. This removes all the incentive to collect/maintain it.

 

For me at least, it can be said ArenaNet gambled here and lost. I would hope they are looking into the purchase histories of those who are upset, tracking the changes, and doing the necessary calculus.

[Olterin Fire.5960]

The reply we got was basically PR-speak to say "we heard your outcries. We also got your monies. Kthxbye. Oh, we promise we won't screw you over even worse on what's already there, and the next planned releases won't be like this. But after that all bets are off." Placating the masses, while also accusing the outraged consumer of misunderstanding the intention. All of this reminded me a lot of a certain fiasco in another MMO (when EVE online first introduced a premium currency store, I believe the incident came to be known as "monoclegate") and left a very sour taste in my mouth. I will keep an open mind in the future, but I'll be sure to be watching *actions* not *words*.

[Chadramar.8156]

No, it's pure PR-speak that even attempts to shift the blame onto the playerbase because we asked for "diversity", never acknowledging that the diversity people wish for has mainly been about more ways to earn things through in-game activities, meaning the very opposite of gemstore lootboxes, as well as more diversity in the kind of skins we get (e.g. non-trenchcoat medium armor, gear themed for non-humans for a change).

 

I appreciate most of the skins themselves, and I love the mounts and how they were implemented, and it's just such a crying shame to see that and the general positive reception now tarnished by this lootbox fiasco. But that is squarely on Anet, _not_ on the people who spoke up because we are sick of the encroachment of shady business practices.

[Fade.5904]

Personally i'm ok with it even though i only bought 2 so far but think it could have been implemented better.

id have liked to have seen them sold in sets based on the type of mount (jackal, griffon whatever) so you could just buy your favorite type of mount as not everyone owns the griffon or even jackal etc so less room to feel underwhelmed.

i would have sold them in Series..this being series 1

jackal pack 2000 gems you get all the jackals and so forth then the choice to buy the 'loot boxes' containing one of a specific mount species (random jackal pack etc)

This way for 2000 gems your guaranteed to get one of the shiny skins + 5 others which i don't think is so bad and its better than say looting 5 skimmers right now if what you really want is a raptor for eg.

 

Then after awhile retire Series 1, add series 2 with new mounts and options to buy each full species much the same way but then leave series 1's in the loot boxes too.

Unfortunately now we wont see a 'series 2' now but i guess most people prefer that.

 

 

[kurfu.5623]

Honestly, they can't undo the RNG thing without upsetting everyone that already rolled the dice. This is probably the best way to handle it - by stating that they will not do it again.

[WARIORSCHARGEING.2637]

while it is good to hear anet and MO say sorry they still need to do more on this matter. as well the next new skins they sell they should sell them for 200gems at the very most. 10,000 or 12,000 if you buy them with the 400 gems contracts is too much . same thing goes for the 2500 gem raptor that too is not worth it .

[Loboling.5293]

I'm not sure how to answer the poll, but no matter what they say. I'll still not be buying these mounts, and with pvp in the state it's in, I've been spending more time with other things. I'm not sure when/if I'll spend any more money on this game. Just a lot of sour tastes from different decisions by A-Net. Anyway, I am at least glad, they say they won't do this again. But I'm just not feeling it right now.

[Bish.8627]

There was no answer. Just, sorry some of you are upset, we aren't going to change it because a few cash cows spent money on it and more will too.

[Greyraven.4258]

I just think mock outrage threads is a dog whistle to the worst parts of the community, the part that has been trying to get a foothold for quite sometime, but so far hasn't been able to. The bright side is our CM's are less tolerant of the vitriol than say ESO or WoW, it's much to do about nothing really.

[Dyfinz.2348]

Lol there are plenty of other things that need to be addressed about the game, but Anet released a RNG mountskin gem store item and the community was able to raise enough hell to atleast get their attention. Makes me think that a majority of players do not care or are satisfied with WvW, PvP, broken specs, and a lack of enjoyably repeatable content...as long as they have a new fiery farting moose skin for their jackals

[Tekoneiric.6817]

I question why they thought releasing 31 skins at once was a good idea. That's a year's worth of skins dumped on the players in a somewhat depressed game economy. They did it in the depressed game economy to force people to both use up any left over gems from the purchase of PoF and force people to spend real money on gems.

[Nocturn.8904]

Gonna give that a hard no.

[RoseofGilead.8907]

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

[Pandonation.7201]

> @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!"

 

Precisely. At this point it's not even about the mounts anymore, it's, as I've stated in another thread, just a sign of Anet being completely and shamelessly willing to set customer satisfaction aside in the name of money. Boo.

[AegisRunestone.8672]

... I should have voted "No, ArenaNet's reply did not satisfy me." Regardless, I'm never buying gems from them again; if I need gems, I'm converting via gold. No more real money. The statement was a poor excuse to create damage control, and in the long run, it will only hurt them and it will hurt Guild Wars 2. The company already suffered a lot of backlash from multiple gaming sites and gaming experts, not to mention the community, and this was not an appropriate response.

[Jordan.5930]

Tried it thinking hey maybe I'm wrong, maybe the odds aren't against me like I thought. Maybe Wooden potatoes was right and I shouldn't be this outraged. Nope. Got 4 skins that I did not care for, 1 Griffin (don't even own one) 2 sparkly skins, the flaming Bunny and the glowing skimmer (which I HATE, I absolutely despise particle effects) and another bunny skin. All I wanted was 1 raptor skin and I couldn't even get that much. $20 wasted. I'm done with this game. However people try to defend it, it's a scam. Anet got their money, but they just lost 4 players who are fed up with this sort of system. And without immediate action on their part, there's nothing keeping me here.

[hugo.4705]

NO Just feel like they don't do their jobs: Listening players. Short answers are better.

[Hevoskuuri.3891]

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

[Liewec.2896]

no point in people complaining, just don't buy them,

if people don't buy them then the devs will realise that they are overly expensive/random and change the system.

with games like this the best way to speak is with your wallet, if the vast majority don't like something then the vast majority don't buy it,

and then the devs probably won't make the same mistake again.

 

personally i'm holding out for the inevitable dragon skin for griffon anyway :smile:

[Olterin Fire.5960]

> @Hevoskuuri.3891 said:

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

 

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

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @Jordan.5930 said:

> Tried it thinking hey maybe I'm wrong, maybe the odds aren't against me like I thought. Maybe Wooden potatoes was right and I shouldn't be this outraged. Nope. Got 4 skins that I did not care for, 1 Griffin (don't even own one) 2 sparkly skins, the flaming Bunny and the glowing skimmer (which I HATE, I absolutely despise particle effects) and another bunny skin. All I wanted was 1 raptor skin and I couldn't even get that much. $20 wasted. I'm done with this game. However people try to defend it, it's a scam. Anet got their money, but they just lost 4 players who are fed up with this sort of system. And without immediate action on their part, there's nothing keeping me here.

 

That was the first video of WP's I've ever watched. It's very long, which he acknowledges at the beginning. He also says he expect nobody will be happy he didn't take sides. He also pretty much implied he wasn't in favor of this because it's an extension of a problem that has existed for a while and no one should be surprised.

[Ohoni.6057]

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.

[Game of Bones.8975]

Since I never planned on buying them, I was never concerned as much as everyone else.

I understand that buying anything random incurs a chance you won't get the outcome you wished for.

If it's the price you are upset about, wait a month and I'm sure there will be a Wintersday Sale.

[Snow.2048]

No skins earnable in game other than base. Intentionally giving 1/4 of a skin as base to release a full version as gamble box filler to pad out the odds. Further screwing with the odds by adding all mounts in one pool, making it possible to not get your mount of choice's skin (let alone a specific skin!).

 

Limiting acquisition methods to be either gamble, or buy all for a sum greater than any actual content purchases. Adding a ridiculously priced single skin to encourage buyer rationalisation as a form of manipulation. Further manipulating with artificial scarcity as usual. Adding more gambling to a game that is rated 12+ in order to take advantage of a population that is less exposed to such tactics.

 

Playing the victim, giving only short term promises to improve, said promises being extremely limited in scope with many loopholes for more 'experiments'. Trying to plead ignorance of the current situation in their own field in attempt to deter accusations of malicious intent. Insinuating that the only problem with this plan was the timing, not the actual plan itself. Making excuses and trying to pass the blame onto others.

 

No, I don't think the answer's flaws noted in the third paragraph has done anything to truly answer my concerns in the first two, just made it worse for me.

 

 

EDIT: As for others as for me, I don't care that much about the mount skins. I would have liked to buy a few of them depending on the price point (and not even all the particle effect ones, I wanted the wolf/husky jackal the most, with the celestrial griffon a second and I don't care about the rest, would be fine with just the base one with extra dye channels or even just only base). Its about principles and about concern for the game direction. The last sentence of the edit is worth my long multiple posts, the first would not have me bothered to look up the new forums address.