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

[Ashen.2907]

For the most part yes.

 

Monetization of mounts was among the most common arguments for adding them to the game. This is a particularly effective monetization technique.

 

I dont like gambling oriented systems, but having full functionality require no such system, tying only cosmetics to it, is better than many alternatives. This is especially the case as so many arguing against the rng aspect seem set on lowballing the price for individual purchase.

[Gaile Gray.6029]

Thank you to the vast majority of participants who are keeping this discussion on a meaningful and courteous level. A reminder: If you disagree, by all means speak your peace, but do not insult others, nor attempt to dismiss their opinion or their input. There is room for everyone to speak, and a discussion that welcomes and respects differing and shared opinions is the most valuable kind of conversation to have.

[Nikal.4921]

> @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.

[Generator Gawl.5142]

I don't really mind. I like all of the skins. Sure, I prefer some to others but I like them all. The only real problem I had with it is that I don't have a griffon and don't plan on getting one. I don't think the griffon skins should be part of the RNG until you unlock it, if at all. And I would rather pay 400 gems for a random decent skin rather than 2000 for only one, even if I know what I'm getting.

[ReaverKane.7598]

Not even close.

Ok they're not adding more RNG skins in the future (or so they say), doesn't invalidate they exist, and that other stuff that relies of gambling (the 24+ slot bags) exists. I find no reassurance from that message. Sure they acknowledge that they shouldn't have released "loot crates" when they dropped out of favour in the gaming community, not that the practice itself is predatory, toxic and if it were in a different medium, outright illegal in most cases. They make no apology for the practice, only the timing.

Which tells to me, that might not be mounts, but they have no qualms on doing similar stuff in other areas.

 

1) They could have EASILY added the "lesser" ones as ingame rewards for various things. Which would still take notice of the Artist's work without having to create this farse.

Could have even added a set AS A PRE-ORDER BONUS OR A DIGITAL DELUXE bonus. I mean i pre-ordered and bought Ultimate, and although i regret that a little given the treatment we received, i bought it to support Arena Net, not really for the rewards, because they were just lazy and bad (same attitude that caused this whole problem).

And they can still revert to buy what you want without having to roll around the RNG. Refund what people bought, roll it back, and redo, maybe. It would be nice to see Arena Net own up to their mistakes instead of offering petty platitudes like they've always done in the past.

 

2) The Forged Warhound is FREAKING OVERPRICED. I'm sorry 25€ for a single mount? I know as a company us players are viewed as walking wallets. But at least have the decency of not showing it. If that's your plan for the future you're not going to do much better. Sure a couple of people with more money than sense will buy them, a few kids with free access to parent's credit cards will buy them before getting grounded for a month. But most people won't really touch those, ESPECIALLY because you still try to rush people into buying shit with temporary sales instead of just letting the stuff stay in the store so people can choose.

 

3)As an apology, saying "we're right, you're wrong", in not so many words and doing nothing about it. Isn't really an apology.

 

Whoever is in charge of this lacks imagination. The artists did well. I mean some of the new skins are nice, and the small details do make a difference. But the people in charge of rolling out the skins are lazy and unimaginative.

Guild Wars 2 promised to revolutionize the MMO world, and they did. But then they rested on those laurels, and creativity took second stage to just mounting stuff on top of what came before. Innovation lost precedence to profit. Which is a shame.

[Ben K.6238]

It seemed like a fair point to me, but I still believe they could set individual prices of 800 for any one of those skins, so that if you're really interested in only a handful, they're not out of reach.

 

I'm wondering what this means for outfits or armour that aren't super flashy. To be fair though, there's a few more of them to choose from at the moment so maybe they can afford to add a few with more niche appeal.

[Slowpokeking.8720]

No, I don't care about mount but I REALLY hate RNG.

[Silmar Alech.4305]

I answered that I was not satisfied, but my answer could be split: The answer itself was ok. Mike O'Brien showed respect to the players. But the message didn't satisfy me, mainly because I don't know if he really meant it. I still assume, the monetization will just continue in the same way as before, regardless of the players showing their dislike, and his post was just something to only calm the players. The forum threads connected to the issue will be closed by moderation in a few days when the dust has settled (some already have instead of being merged), and all things will continue as they were before the accident.

 

In the end, money rules all, and that is the most important thing for a company. The RNG thing will only change, if legislation changes the law, and the worse companies make RNG and gambling in teen-rated games, the sooner the legislation is made aware of that. In a sense, I'm hoping it gets worse, so legislation will jump on it sooner.

[Menadena.7482]

People had some very specific complaints and suggestions. What we got was pr-speak rather than addressing any of those things. Meanwhile it is the weekend and the internet negative-pr is continuing on while anet probably hopes they resolved it.

[Gambino.2109]

Not what I wanted to hear.. I'm debating if I do want to buy of the gemstore again. My trust was definitely hit with this

[Rococo.8347]

> @"Olterin Fire.5960" said:

> > @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.

 

Yup.

 

If this was a witness statement in a Court, a Barrister would rip it to shreds.

 

Just the fact that it used all that manipulative jargon got my back up to be honest, having worked in Media once I see those carefully crafted statements I know the jig is up.

 

[OriOri.8724]

I know most people disagree with me, but I didn't have a problem with the response from ANet. Whether or not you agree with RNG rewards like this, you cannot deny that a mount skin has no bearing whatsoever on your gameplay. None of those skins change how the mounts function. They don't make the mounts faster, or stronger, or give them extra endurance. They just change the skin. And ANet has to make money off the gem store somehow.

[Lucciana.6809]

I always were a fan of most of the gemstore products and I spent about 20€ every month. I still have some gems saved, and I'll probably spend them on winter's day. But to be honest, I'm so disappointed with ANets reaction, I'm not sure if I'll buy gems ever again. If I really want something I will trade gems for gold but as I said I'm not sure if I'll spend anymore real money for this game. In the End it's just a game and it's supposed to be fun, but right now I'm just mad.

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @OriOri.8724 said:

> I know most people disagree with me, but I didn't have a problem with the response from ANet. Whether or not you agree with RNG rewards like this, you cannot deny that a mount skin has no bearing whatsoever on your gameplay. None of those skins change how the mounts function. They don't make the mounts faster, or stronger, or give them extra endurance. They just change the skin. And ANet has to make money off the gem store somehow.

 

I disagree. It is the only skinnable item that there is absolutely no way of earning a skin for by just playing.

[TwilightSoul.9048]

I'm glad they made a statement about it to begin with and I was also very glad to hear that we'll not see something like that again.

However there were many points left untouched - for example, they didn't adress why the skins weren't made tradable. In my opinion the whole thing would be fine (not great) if you could just trade away whichever skins you did not want (Who is gonna use 30 different skins??) the whole thing would be fine. Plus people who do not want to invest in rng could buy the skins they wanted in the TP (Popular skins would likely be very expensive meaning more gems->gold transactions = more moneys).

And another thing is, they (anet) did concede the point that it was indeed a bad decision but proceeded to not change it. Making skins tradable shouldn't be too hard, right?

 

Edit: And something else that bothers me is: There aren't any mount skins locked away in game, PoF already has very few serious collections, mount skins would've been a great option and to release such a huge amount of skin in the cash shop shortly after release is like saying: "Look what we could've added to the expansion but decided not to so we can make more money!"

[Zin Dau.1749]

> @RoseofGilead.8907 said:

> 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).

 

Well, We don't care for your plight, just as you don't care for other customers' concerns.

 

> @Dyfinz.2348 said:

> 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

 

Uh there have been lots of threads and complaints about WvW, PvP, over the years. Have the devs listen and do anything about that? Well we see that WvW, PvP keeps dwindling. Maybe you didn't complain enough? Or maybe the devs don't really care? They only care to maximize profits; forget about consumer satisfaction or game balance, right?

 

> @Liewec.2896 said:

> 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.

 

This is literally not businesses works or people work. "Maybe if I stay quiet, they can read my mind and change their behavior according to the opinions that I keep in my head." Yea you go ahead and try that.

 

> @Haleydawn.3764 said:

> > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > > @Haleydawn.3764 said:

> > > It might not be what people wanted, but it's the answer we've got.

> >

> > It does not qualify as an answer even.

> >

> >

>

>

> Subjective. What more could be added on to MO's post? They've (Anet) have admitted missteps when designing and shipping the Mount Adoption Licence. They justified why they did it in the way they have. They have also stated that not only will they not change the Licence to invalidate anyone who has purchased them, who are fine with the progressive mechanic of the item, but they will focus on singular skins, and bundles for their next release.

> "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."

>

>

> > > @Haleydawn.3764 said:

> They are cosmetics, they are not p2w.

 

Literally nobody complained about them p2w.

 

"They are cosmetics."

 

Okay then, why do we have to pay money for "just cosmetics"? Why is cosmetics one of the biggest part of this game's economy? Even in real life, cosmetics and fashion occupy the vast majority of the stores in any shopping district and mall.

 

Just cosmetics!

[Dovienya.6597]

I am grateful for the response, and grateful that a change is in the works for future releases.

 

The insinuation that the controversy stems from players inability to see that they’re actually getting a good deal, is troubling.

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @OriOri.8724 said:

> I know most people disagree with me, but I didn't have a problem with the response from ANet. Whether or not you agree with RNG rewards like this, you cannot deny that a mount skin has no bearing whatsoever on your gameplay. None of those skins change how the mounts function. They don't make the mounts faster, or stronger, or give them extra endurance. They just change the skin. And ANet has to make money off the gem store somehow.

 

Nobody is questioning their ability to make money here. That's a complete non sequitor. This is about how the mounts can only be acquired via RNG methods, making it highly unlikely that most players will get what they want at a reasonable price, which is exploitative.

[Ashen.2907]

> @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> > @OriOri.8724 said:

> > I know most people disagree with me, but I didn't have a problem with the response from ANet. Whether or not you agree with RNG rewards like this, you cannot deny that a mount skin has no bearing whatsoever on your gameplay. None of those skins change how the mounts function. They don't make the mounts faster, or stronger, or give them extra endurance. They just change the skin. And ANet has to make money off the gem store somehow.

>

> I disagree. It is the only skinnable item that there is absolutely no way of earning a skin for by just playing.

 

By playing the game I have the acquired sufficient resources to purchase any mount skin.

[OriOri.8724]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @OriOri.8724 said:

> > I know most people disagree with me, but I didn't have a problem with the response from ANet. Whether or not you agree with RNG rewards like this, you cannot deny that a mount skin has no bearing whatsoever on your gameplay. None of those skins change how the mounts function. They don't make the mounts faster, or stronger, or give them extra endurance. They just change the skin. And ANet has to make money off the gem store somehow.

>

> Nobody is questioning their ability to make money here. That's a complete non sequitor. This is about how the mounts can only be acquired via RNG methods, making it highly unlikely that most players will get what they want at a reasonable price, which is exploitative.

 

I can't agree on it being exploitative since its not at all required to play the game. These skins do not improve your character. Period. They do not make your mounts better in any way from a gamplay sense. Its on players to then choose to use a 100% RNG method to try to obtain the skin.

[Charrbeque.8729]

I already knew they would end up responding and what their response would be. ArenaNet is pretty predictable. If it was any other company they would have either told us to deal with it, or ignore the playerbase completely without ever saying anything.

 

It is very reasonable to expect them not to change the adoption license. Players who bought a bunch only wanting a couple specific skins _would_ feel cheated if suddenly everyone else were able to pick and choose the exact skin(s) they wanted. It would also create a headache for customer support with players demanding refunds for, and the removal of, mount skins they didn't want.

 

Out of respect for ArenaNet, I went back on what I said and bought the Reforged Warhound jackal skin (I already had the gems). I still think this 1 skin was a bit too costly (2k gems) compared to the spooky mount skin pack I purchased earlier (5 skins; 1 for each mount; for 1,600 gems).

 

But, to be honest, some of the skins from the adoption license are exactly the same as the basic mount skins, with the only difference I can see being up to 4 dye channels, and different patters on the skins (just a different paint job, basically). While some skins have small differences like different horns on the raptor's head, or a different shaped tip of the tail on the skimmer.

 

In my opinion they came out with _too many_ mount skins, and because of that, a majority of them only have a different paint job and/or slight differences to the basic mount skins. For example: The Tawny Hare skin looks exactly the same as the basic springer, just with a different paint job. Same for the Savannah Monitor raptor skin.

 

Just slapping a different paint job on a mount and selling it seems - pardon the expression - kinda lazy. If you're gonna sell skins, go big. They need to have some actually difference to the design to make them worthwhile. This game is heavily cosmetic, but having a bunch of the same stuff with just very little difference, if any, seems kinda of pointless.

 

-----------------------

 

Maybe go with a tiered pricing system:

 

Low price = different paint job only (examples: Tawny Hare, Savannah Monitor)

 

Mid price = different paint job+slight differences (different horns on the raptor's head, ears on the springer, tail/fins on the skimmer, etc.)

 

High price = special particle effects and/or a complete rework of the skin to make it look totally different from the basic skins (examples: Reforged Warhound, Flamelander, Stardust, Primal Hare, etc.)

[Ashen.2907]

> @OriOri.8724 said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > @OriOri.8724 said:

> > > I know most people disagree with me, but I didn't have a problem with the response from ANet. Whether or not you agree with RNG rewards like this, you cannot deny that a mount skin has no bearing whatsoever on your gameplay. None of those skins change how the mounts function. They don't make the mounts faster, or stronger, or give them extra endurance. They just change the skin. And ANet has to make money off the gem store somehow.

> >

> > Nobody is questioning their ability to make money here. That's a complete non sequitor. This is about how the mounts can only be acquired via RNG methods, making it highly unlikely that most players will get what they want at a reasonable price, which is exploitative.

>

> I can't agree on it being exploitative since its not at all required to play the game. These skins do not improve your character. Period. They do not make your mounts better in any way from a gamplay sense. Its on players to then choose to use a 100% RNG method to try to obtain the skin.

 

The RNG doesnt determine the ability to get a given mount, it determines the cost of getting the mount. A player can completely bypass the RNG element...its just expensive to do so.

[sprhavkdogi.9408]

The issue I take with the response is that the "justifications" for why they did it are very weak at best, missed one of our biggest questions (why are no skins in game), and the answer itself seems dishonest and just a quick attempt to try to quell us. The only other game I actively spend money on these days is Fire Emblem Heroes, which on almost every occasion has listened to requests from the player base, admitted mistakes (even ones players didn't know about), and given players small compensations in return. FE Heroes is an rng based gacha game, yet I can tell they care a lot about the player base and want us to be happy as we play their game. In the past, I would say without a doubt Anet is the same way, but with this paltry response, I now have difficulty justifying that for the entire company. I will not be satisfied with a "we know better than you about what you actually want, so shut up and accept this". A lot of the other points I disagree with MO on have been made by others so I can't think of more to add.

[MithranArkanere.8957]

I do not care about PR posts. I only really care about the stuff the ends up in Game Release Notes.

[Vagrant.7206]

No.

 

It was a "Sorry, not sorry" response. Instead of taking steps to correct the issue as it exists, they simply said they won't make it worse. That's not a solution in the slightest. It still costs over 9000 gems to get all the skins, and possibly that many gems to get the one you want, which is incomprehensibly expensive. Saying they won't make the problem worse is like killing the dog then saying they won't kill the cat too.