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

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Vayne.8563 said:

> To me there's no compassion in the fan base. I can't have a mount skin I want, because it's RNG. Okay. At the same time, people have been spending gold instead of cash for years, some of us anyway, and the amount of money the game makes is sliding down. People keep saying stuff like greed and business....this isn't a game that's making more and more money. It's a game that's making less and less money. But you know, people can't have their mount skin so the company is evil and your'e done with it.

 

There's nothing wrong with spending gold instead of cash. I used to think that way too, until someone pointed out where I wasn't looking at it right. Every gem on the exchange is there because someone paid for it, and wanted to convert it into gold. So any time you buy gems with gold, that's not you putting money in, but it is you justifying someone else putting money in, the money comes from somewhere either way. In fact, buying gems with gold is a slightly *better* for the game, since there is a tax on doing so, so like if you buy $10 in gems with gold, they make something like $11-12 off the transaction. The only way you aren't supporting them is if you purchse nothing from the gem store at all.

[Gilgamesh VII.8690]

It was just PR talk to defend the practice. Unforutaly action speaks louder then words and all we have see are words and zero action.

 

Both the RNG mount Box (The Rock) and 2000 gem single mount (The Hard Place) are both bad moves which has hit Anet hard in in the reputation department.

 

My suggestion for the RNG mount boxes is to offer them as a droppable reward in PoF maps tired to meta events rewards, bounty rewards or treasure chest with low drop rates for each, like Black Lion Keys are able to drop from monster kills.

 

I do hope they fix this because I hate to think of the damage that was done for the future of Guild Wars.

 

Good Luck Anet Dev you will need it to pass thought this storm you have created.

[Majic.4801]

I'm just here because there aren't enough things to be angry about in this world.

[Olterin Fire.5960]

> @Vayne.8563 said:

> > @"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.

>

> People said this about what Anet said about not adding another tier of gear after ascended. You can word something and still have no intention of doing it. You're making an assumption that leaving a loophole means you intend to use it. I leave loopholes all the time when I talk and almost never use them, but it's better to be safe than sorry. I believe the intent of what was being said is definitely the intent for now. A couple of years down the road, no one can know what the situation will be.

 

(Sorry about the somewhat late response)

 

I was inclined to think that that *might* be why. You know, future-proofing your current wording is something that many people are actually familiar with, and Arenanet did have some "good will currency" with me. However, the extent to which it was done here goes above and beyond merely "leaving future loopholes open", nono. And if you are going to cast doubt on this, just take a look at what that_shaman datamined

 

 

 

Notable highlight - "Black Lion Arsenal Box". OK, so it's not a mount lootbox. And it probably won't be as expensive (... inb4 I eat my words). But *come on*. It is quite clear that the intent was to defend the lootbox concept, even with the *mercifully graceful* lack of duplicates, and to quite clearly keep an avenue to deploy more of them, quite possibly very rapidly.

 

I am not someone who'll fall prey to the gambling attempt, nor will I fall for the 2000-gem mount to justify the other things. The mathematics of this situation are quite simple - we have a mount skin, a complete remodel, but precisely that, that costs let's say half as much as Path of Fire did (I consider the 30-euro version to be the discount version for the sake of argument here). 2000 gems are equivalent of 25 euros, PoF is equivalent to 50 euros. A single mount, no matter how awesome, is never going to be justifiable at the price of half an expansion. Not even if it's an entirely new mount, with masteries and animations and skeleton rigging, all the bells and whistles, you know. It was clearly meant to grab money, and to make people who'd consider gambling feel better about it because what's the alternative? a 2000-gem-mount? Of course you'd rather take your chances (unless you do the math). Tangent aside, though. I do not and will not ever support such gambling practices in a game on moral grounds - why have I not voiced my concerns earlier, you might ask? Because until now, the game did not rely on such methods to deliver a significant chunk of content. Yes, a significant chunk of content - you cannot possibly claim that 31 (36 if we count the halloween mounts, but let's not, they were almost reasonable) mount skins a short while after the expansion are a minor drop in the ocean, because there are literally only 41 mount skins total available. And content, if it is just cosmetic, is content. This game is about cosmetics. Endgame rewards - Legendary Armor and Weapons - are for 90% about cosmetics, not stats. Hell, I wouldn't even be this concerned had the skins been packed into much, much smaller packages with *actual consumer choice* and *average* mount price of at most 1000 gems (I'm being generous here, this in itself is a poor value proposition already, but it's the established norm, see gliders and outfits). That is however not what we got, and the response we got did little to allay concerns that such practices would be frowned upon in the future in general.

 

And this is a damn shame, I'd have gladly spent 400-600 gems on several (in the range of 5-10) mount skins, had they been available at that pricing, separately, without an RNG lock in front of them. Because I do appreciate the work done on *some* of the new skins and I hate to see it go to waste (please don't sell extra-dye-channels-the-skin for the same price as a different mount skin (the difference has to be noticeable, not just one extra spike here, one fewer nail there), that's just insulting my intelligence and sense of taste). And while I'm also annoyed at the complete lack of extra mount skins available through gameplay unlocks, I'm a patient man, I understand it can take time to implement them in a way that would make sense - we haven't even seen what the next season of the Living World is going to bring (but there better be a set of mount skins available through gameplay in there, since they're apparently so easy to create).

 

TL;DR: by looking at the broader picture, I do not like where the game is headed in terms of content delivery methods. I can not support RNG lootboxes, and if that is how future content will be delivered, then I shall have no reason to partake in it. Also, *reasonable* pricing on the non-RNG content, *please*. A single skin/model is *never* worth the same as a whole expansion. It is ludicrous to think that can ever seem acceptable.

[Tru Reptile.6058]

MO's response is meaningless unless they fix this imo. They should refund the gems and allow us to buy the mounts we want. There's no need to get rid of the Mount Adoption License as that could be used for future mounts.

[Sykper.6583]

> @Zedek.8932 said:

> (Massive Quote)

 

This guys gets it.

 

Even if they could have done a better job with the licenses with some of the other suggestions, things like having griffon skins unlock when you don't have the mount itself (utterly stupid mind you), making some skins require a collection or a quest, and so forth. The reactions here are overblown to say the least, some people are behaving like Arenanet sacrifices a puppy for each sale or some other grave matter.

[choovanski.5462]

> @brenda.9723 said:

> > @choovanski.5462 said:

> > I feel so validated in my decision not to buy PoF. anet is no longer anything close to worthwhile these days

>

> actually the game is really nice and totally worth it ^^

 

we are in one of the worst PvP metas I have ever seen. it's full of imbalance, builds that lack counterplay, and huge bugs.

 

this game is anything but 'nice and totally worth it' for a PvP player. it's awful.

[Crossaber.8934]

Actually i don’t mind such a loot box at all, there is excitement in drawing items. But the price should be justified for players that is unlucky enough to bought 30 times in order to obtain the desired skin.

 

As a little background i grew up in an environment filled with this kind of lucky draw toy mechines every where. The toy ball sometimes contains junk items that not supposed in the pool, and it is very likely to receive duplicated toys than the most desired ones.

 

If you don’t like it, as a customer we can deny buying it at all anyway.

[Burnfall.9573]

I will put this in simple words: it was never for the best interest of the customers, but for the company.

[Oglaf.1074]

> @Boingo.5264 said:

> Their statement said that they stand behind the work done on these mount skins. What could be a better expression of that pride and confidence than to sell all of these skins individually?

 

Exactly. The cynic in me wants to say that all the "simple" retextures (i.e the vast majority of these skins) are just there to pad out the pool to make getting the "good ones" harder, forcing you to gamble more.

 

If they truly believed in the merits of each of these individual skins then yeah... they would put them up individually on the Gemstore, indeed.

 

But they don't. It is padding. Diluting the gambling pool.

[Zaxares.5419]

I bought the 30 license pack because I collect these sorts of things and I absolutely refuse to play the RNG game, but I still believe that ANet should not have locked the mount skins behind lootcrates to begin with. I would be perfectly fine with ANet redoing the licenses to sell each one individually for 400 gems, and refunding people who no longer want the 30 pack. (I'll be keeping mine, for reasons already explained.) Aside from the increased workload on Support, I honestly see no reason why ANet couldn't do this.

 

The other factor that I think bears addressing is the 2000 gem price for the Reforged Warhound. That's a massive price jump above and beyond simple inflation, and I hope ANet seriously looks at adjusting the price, because even though it's pure cosmetics, it's like suddenly introducing a Mercedes into a shop that had previously sold Fords and Hyundais. It runs the risk of turning GW2 into a more "haves vs have nots" community.

[Djinn.9245]

> @Myhr.9108 said:

> Got the answer I wanted : no more RNG for mount skins

 

Except that's not what he said.

[Renim.6921]

I made a post about being disappointed in ArenaNET and their decision, and they gave me a 3 day suspension. If I could get a refund for PoF, I would. If they would have told me they planned on doing loot boxes like this, I never would have bought the expansion and deleted it from my hard drive. I feel ripped off by the whole thing.

 

ANet's response was basically saying "We're sorry you called us out on this." It's pretty much the equivalent of "Sorry, not sorry." If they gave me an option, I would much rather pay $15 a month and allow me to be able to collect the skins in the game instead of an online cash store.

[Alfador.7649]

Their entire response was basically "we're sorry you're upset." Not an admission they screwed up and wholly dismissive of the idea that anything they did was ill-considered or wrong other than the fact that they should have anticipated people would be mad.

I'd be offended but it's honestly such predictable, cynical exploiter behavior that I'm merely disappointed

 

> @Ayakaru.6583 said:

> > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > > @Zaxares.5419 said:

> > > I bought the 30 license pack because I collect these sorts of things and I absolutely refuse to play the RNG game, but I still believe that ANet should not have locked the mount skins behind lootcrates to begin with.

> >

> > Well friggin done playing right into their hands.

> >

> > The reason why they put them in Loot Boxes in the first place was to get you to buy the hilariously overpriced unlock pack.

> >

> > Way to reward them for their terrible idea. Bravo.

> >

>

> I dont like cookies, so i dont think anyone else is allowed to have cookies. You have the right to dislike the payment model, and trust me, im on your side that i dislike lootcrates. But at no point in time is okay to shame others for making the purchase. Tell anet you dont like the model, but dont bash the customers

 

9 times out of 10 I'd agree with you, but no, just no. That's a false equivalence, and the worst kind at that because you're using it to tacitly excuse vile behavior. If I "don't like cookies" I don't have to give a hoot whether someone else does because their buying and consuming cookies has no impact on me. There's no validation of a harmful, exploitative business model that gates the things I do like behind it. Honestly I'm not going to go around calling people who bought this what I want to call them, but I can't respect anyone who did that, and I certainly look at them as someone who has absolutely harmed me and every other player by playing right into Anet's excessively greedy hands.

[Telem.3542]

Easy solution.

Keep the gamble box for 400 gems.

Introduce nongamble box for 800 gems.

Relock all mount skins.

Anybody who gambled for mount skins are rewarded the same number of nongamble boxes as they have purchased pre-fix.

So somebody bought 5 random boxes for 400 gems each, gets those 5 mounts relocked, but is rewarded 5 nongamble boxes so they can select the skins they want.

 

Who does this hurt besides the elitists who are going to be pissed anyways?

[Oglaf.1074]

> @Telem.3542 said:

> Easy solution.

> Keep the gamble box for 400 gems.

> Introduce nongamble box for 800 gems.

> Relock all mount skins.

> Anybody who gambled for mount skins are rewarded the same number of nongamble boxes as they have purchased pre-fix.

> So somebody bought 5 random boxes for 400 gems each, gets those 5 mounts relocked, but is rewarded 5 nongamble boxes so they can select the skins they want.

>

> Who does this hurt besides the elitists who are going to be pissed anyways?

 

The vast majority of the skins are not worth 800 Gems.

 

You'd be better off just seperating them in two tiers: 400 Gems for the retextures, 600-700 Gems for the ones with fancy effects.

[Mokai.2480]

> It uses a progressive mechanic. Every license gives you a new skin to use and increases the odds of acquiring any remaining skins.

 

This was an extremely subtle way of saying "You can keep paying to improve the chances of getting what you want while getting a lot of other things you don't want and have no value to you." Statements like this are encouraging those with an addictive personalizes into a "Just one more try" mindset, spending way more than what the skin would cost if it were available individually. This isn't the consumer-friendly feature it's trying to be sold to us as; it's exploitative.

[Telem.3542]

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > @Telem.3542 said:

> > Easy solution.

> > Keep the gamble box for 400 gems.

> > Introduce nongamble box for 800 gems.

> > Relock all mount skins.

> > Anybody who gambled for mount skins are rewarded the same number of nongamble boxes as they have purchased pre-fix.

> > So somebody bought 5 random boxes for 400 gems each, gets those 5 mounts relocked, but is rewarded 5 nongamble boxes so they can select the skins they want.

> >

> > Who does this hurt besides the elitists who are going to be pissed anyways?

>

> The vast majority of the skins are not worth 800 Gems.

>

> You'd be better off just seperating them in two tiers: 400 Gems for the retextures, 600-700 Gems for the ones with fancy effects.

 

They're pretty determined to keep those gamble things at 400 gems.

Though 800 gems seems the normal ridiculous price of the gemstore anyways.

2000 gems for a single mount, I wouldn't spend it since I don't think it's worth that.

But somebody else does. And that is their choice to choose that single mount skin for 2000 gems.

 

Also anybody who says the starbound griffon is worth more money, that one is even more of a lazy retexture than the subtle ones, close to zero effort put into it with a little particle effect around it.

That's the problem with pricing them differently.

[MrRuin.9740]

> @Vayne.8563 said:

> To me there's no compassion in the fan base. I can't have a mount skin I want, because it's RNG. Okay. At the same time, people have been spending gold instead of cash for years, some of us anyway, and the amount of money the game makes is sliding down. People keep saying stuff like greed and business....this isn't a game that's making more and more money. It's a game that's making less and less money. But you know, people can't have their mount skin so the company is evil and your'e done with it.

>

> As long as there are people willing to buy stuff that keep the game running, I'm playing the game very cheaply if I don't buy that stuff. I'm not sure why it should affect my game so much since those skins didn't even exist a couple of weeks ago and I was having fun anyway.

 

Do they consider that having things locked behind RNG may be the reason people spend less? Gambling is being used to encourage people to buy things, so if they don't get what they want, they will continue to spend until they do. This, in theory, brings in more money because people are paying to get things they didn't actually want.

Personally, I will not support such a system. If I could just buy what I wanted, I would spend the money for it. If I want to buy a shirt at a store, I don't give the cashier money and then they give a me a randomly coloured shirt and I have to keep paying them until I get the colour I want. Clearly the model doesn't translate to real life (unless you're into actual gambling, but even then it's not the same thing. People gamble to win big, not to get a specific shirt colour). Even applied to the rest of the cashshop, it's a ridiculous system - if you wanted to buy an inventory expansion, but the inventory expansion is not a purchase, you have to buy a lootbox that contains 30 items and you may (or most likely not) get the inventory expansion. I would buy mount skins, if I could buy just the ones I wanted. As it is, I would either have to gamble or buy them all. Either way I'm stuck paying for a lot of skins I don't even want and will never use. It's a terrible system, IMO, and they're not getting my money because they won't let me buy what I want.

I wonder if the people that feed into the gambling aspect more than counter the amount of people who won't pay for RNG. I assume they must, since it's a model they have stuck with for a long time.

 

[Miko.4158]

was ok, just stating their position. Which is sensible. An apology would have been better, I don't believe they mean to offend people, but yes they do have to sell stuff....

As big cheese he should have said "we got the marketing all wrong, I will be talking to the marketing department about this to make sure we align to your expectations around the gaming experience, rng boxes are a sensitive subject and we haven't handled as well as we should have. I will make sure we learn from this experience" not some fluff that loot boxes are all in the papers/news etc ,- own it boyo and earn your corn.

[Ashen.2907]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Vayne.8563 said:

>

> > Actually gems may have monetary value but mount skins don't because they're not bought with your money they're bought with gems. I'm pretty sure that's why so many game companies use a secondary currency and I'm pretty sure it's been tested in court.

>

> That's not true. It's impossible to get gems without spending money. While it's true that *you* can get gems without spending money, you can only do so by buying those gems from someone who *did* spend money for them, so *someone* spent money for those gems to exist. Your argument here would only be a valid one you the gem exchange did not exist but instead you could just directly buy gem store stuff with gold.

>

> As for why games use secondary resources, there are three reasons:

>

> 1. Psychological. This is especially true of games like GW2 that do not have a 1:1 relationship between USD and their currencies. You get 400 gems for $5, not 500 gems, which makes people sub-conciously think that a 400 gem purchase is $4, not $5. Obviously this works slightly differently in other markets, but this *is* primarily an American game made by Americans, so it would be most natural to balance the two if they didn't deliberately avoid doing so. On top of this, people just feel a bit more loose with "play money" than with real money, so once it's been converted, they're more likely to spend it.

> 2. Sunk costs. Alternate currencies typically come in bundled packages, often with discounts for larger bundles. Once you've converted it, you can't get it back, so you might as well spend it. Often online stores will set pricing such that a given item costs just a bit more in currency than what you would get from the nearest bundle, like 500-600 gems when the bundle options are 400 or 800, forcing you to have gems left over. This either wastes the remainder or encourages you to get more gems to buy something else with. GW2 isn't so bad with this, especially since you can use the exchange to make up the differences in either direction, but other games really lean into this one.

> 3. Processing fees. Making payments with credit cards typically involves a fee on their end, if you spend $20, they will receive less than $20. Requiring players to make more bulk purchases is more efficient on their end than if you make a lot of little purchases directly using credit cards. If you convert $20 into 1600 gems, and then spend those on four items, it would make them at least slightly more pocketed cash than if you'd purchased four items for $5 each, or if you'd purchased half a dozen items at varying prices.

>

>

 

It is not impossible to get gems without someone spending money. Its not a large sum, but gems are awarded in AP chests.

[Ayakaru.6583]

Impossible to get gems without paying money? I dunno, i find the pvp seasonal track to give me quite a lot of gold which i can convert to gems

[Jordan.5930]

> @Zedek.8932 said:

> Excelsior.

>

> As I don't care the slightest about the matter itself, I am very happy there was a statement at all and it even had a content.

> I started online gaming exactly 10 years ago. In 2007, NEXON, ugh... Then RIOT, when it grew, yikes... Square Enix, Japanese Feel-Well-PR-Talk all the way, no real change (still to this day, regarding housing, it is just lying and talking. First it was PS3 limits holding FF14 back, now the servers,...)

>

> ArenaNet sticks out here for the first time. Kinda happy.

> However, the majority of the complainers would've want an immediate change/fix, and that's not going to happen. It's a company, and you just don't switch things because 50 guys out of tens of thousands raging a bit on the game's boards (not sure about the reddit cesspool).

> I know that does not work in real life. The local grocery store changed their baskets into weird trolley things and people hated it. Took them 2 years to get them back after months of customer complains. But they spend money on those trolleys, and that's justified enough to ignore feedback for a while.

>

> > @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.

>

> Here we have an example (that I randomly picked after my touchscreen messed up and scrolled like crazy)

> Calling it a _scam_ which is plain wrong (despite it was clear what's going to happen), he even knew _it's about luck_ (read the first sentence), he even know the chances. Then he gets random skins (the sole purpose of that item...) and_ hates _every single of the skin and _does not care_ about the Griffon one etc. And now, because of this guys own...stupiCOUGHdity...well, you know, doing things against his common sense and own awareness (again: he even typed it that he was aware of the risks, and he might get particle skins and griffon skins he don't need)... **Now he quits the entire game and even gets six upvotes.** But he comes back when there is "immediate action" on their part. So you quit **until** you get your lollypop? Have you ever been to a county fair? You wanted that big teddy bear at the lottery booth and just pulled blanks - did you rage too?

> I have customers like you. We point at the door. If you say "You will be out of business soon with this stuff" -> We point at the door again.

>

> Are you for real?

 

Keep calling me stupid, keep throwing insults, it's fine. You may not be out of business, but that doesn't mean you're a _good_ business. And if you're ok with never reaching your full potential because you don't listen to your customers fine. Live your life knowing that you're always doing the bare minimum. But I won't even go in-depth to explain this. If you lack the foresight and understanding to see why this type of behavior is unacceptable and disastrous not just for Guild Wars 2 but for the gaming industry **as a whole**, you are part of the problem. If you do not understand why this behavior encourages lazy game design, **you** are part of the problem. If you are ok with getting less and support companies taking advantage of their player base because by some **twisted logic** you think this is the only way for them to make a living. You. Yes **YOU**. Are part of the problem.

[Witch of Doom.5739]

> @Boingo.5264 said:

> Their statement said that they stand behind the work done on these mount skins. What could be a better expression of that pride and confidence than to sell all of these skins individually?

 

Exactly. How can they know which are the most popular and which ones people would pay the most for, and therefore where their artists should channel their talents? I imagine many want the flashiest ones like the stars, flames, etc. but I want some of the other ones. Not gambling to try and get them, though.

[Osu.6307]

I'm sure anet has access to massive data sets regarding player gem purchase habits and lots of complex statistical models that determined that this was the best way to maximize mount skin revenue. That being said, this kind of RNG system is NEVER going to get me, and many of my guildies, to spends gems on mounts. I like 3 of those mounts skins enough that I would actually buy them. Three! At 400 gems per raffle ticket, there is no way I am going to spend my $ on a chance to win a skin at 30 to 1 odds. Would I spend more gems if I could get a specific skin? Probably, but I'll never be able to because anet is too proud to change.