starlinvf.1358 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @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. On the Subject of WP- Hes in a really bad position right now, because there is really no way to reconcile this situation as "positive" without coming off as shill. Its pretty clear his main concern is trying to fall into a middle spot, because his channel relies on both his patreon supporters for money, and Anet's good graces for continued support in things like event attendance and other shots at insider looks. And I doubt he realizes how badly saying what he did puts him in a worse position with the community. I consider it a moment of panic, and hes trying to play the "clearer heads" card, as this level of backlash has the potential to sink his channel with the amount of GW2 content he does. Unlike previous backlashes from things such as HOT, this event straight up shook the good will of some of the game's strongest gem store supporters. The whales are now aware.... and if they are not acting, they are now paying attention. This also undid much of the good will rebuilt by Path of Fire.... and one of the first things they do with that good will, is push it to see what it will bare. And worse still, it was a double blow with the high cost of the Forged mount skin. So not only did they do something that could cause an uproar, it was paired with something that wasn't a viable alternative to alleviate the frustration. Everything that could had gone wrong with this idea was done, and the response being a carefully constructed deflection just affirmed most of our fears....... ArenaNet got a taste of success, and someone with Dollar signs in their eyes thought it was an opportunity ripe for exploit. Now before anyone forms a response to this, I want to express a certain perspective that seems to be missing from much of the discussion. We need to recognize the difference between Arenanet as a Company, Mike as a Director, and NCsoft as a Publisher. Its difficult to say where exactly this decision came from.... but given the fact GW2 has recently come back from the Dead (something few MMOs have managed), and NCsoft's recent quarterly report, I'm speculating there was intense pressure from NCsoft to further push up profitability, now that its in a position to do so. There was undoubtedly a designer involved, but I can't say with any certainty if they had not seen any issues with the setup, or if powers above were pressuring for a check list of elements. If I had summarize the implementation, it very clearly pushes the whole setup to skew in favor of completionists, and the discount is there to capture that group with the perception of a lower total cost. Given the systems that exist else where in the game, especially with the Black Lion Claim tickets, I highly suspect they had considered adoption licenses as a Black Lion item at first, but then later had it replace the themed bundle packs at behest of some spreadsheet analysis. See.... they make perfect sense as a Black Lion drop to be a gate way into Mount skin collections (which I'm guessing is how you would had gotten the sparkly skins); but that left the question of how to make the lesser skins more popular to get people to buy them. There a couple flaws in the hypothesis, but its the same missing information thats creating uncertainty in all other speculation as well. I'd like to close with the following thought, and a message to the Bossman O'Brian. It is no small amount of irony when a gambling system that masqueraded as fair, itself took a gamble and then lost, then says the backlash it got wasn't fair. And I mean that about reputation..... I have no doubts it made enough money, otherwise they would had immediately announced they were changing the system. And I will call BS at the Invalidation statement, because there were at least a hand full of ways to alter the system without taking away the skins, or affecting completionist in the slightest, and resolving this particular batch without it negatively affecting a future implementation. See the only people who are significantly impacted are the ones who bought less then a 30-pack and still didn't get what they want. That can be mostly resolved by 3 actions..... Move the random adoption licenses to the BlackLion chests, introduce a new claim ticket version to the store without a bundle discount, then have it spent on a Claim ticket vendor with individual lower end skins for 1 each, high end skins for 2 or 3, Legendary skins (like the hound) for 5 tickets, and themed bundle packs with a discount to mimic the original gemstore promotion. And as an apology, anyone who bought any licenses other then the 30 pack, be sent 2 claim tickets for those who bought a 10 pack, and 1 complimentary ticket for anyone who bought a single or 10 pack (again, excluding the 30 pack) during its release. There are still some outliers, but it covers the relative probability of their expectations for a failed skin roll, and gives everyone else an apology skin. On top of which, the system can still be built upon moving forward, doesn't directly interfere with mount skins being bundled with other items, and buyers get some god damn agency outside whether or not to spend the max possible investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @Haleydawn.3764 said: > 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. The only thing they have really admitted is the _bad timing_ on introducing it. If you'll read that post again, you will see MO thinks (or pretends to think) everything would be okay, and their good intentions would not have been misunderstood, if they introduced the very same sale mechanic at a time when there was no lootbox controversy going on around. > They justified why they did it in the way they have. Justified? Hardly. > 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. Yes. So, not only they won't fix the mess they've made, but they committed to not repeating it _only_ for the next releases. After that? Who knows. > "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." They won't change the existing licenses in a way that _wouldn't_ invalidate those investments either. Because they don't really think they did anything wrong, and they definitely don't want to change anything at all. So, basically, they did answer, but they did not really _address_ the problem at all. And they definitely have no intention on fixing anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starlinvf.1358 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @Sykper.6583 said: > > @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. They are.... its called "Consumer Good will". And the beast its being used to feed are called NCsoft's share holders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MokahTGS.7850 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 I have to say looking at this model, I'm very disappointed. As a consumer, this is the least attractive way to buy things. I have little interest in purchasing a mount skin because of this tactic that, IMO, seems shady and designed to extract the most money, not provide the most value and fun. Single mount skins are limited and VERY expensive (read=not a good value). As a player, I would have much preferred you offer the mount skins individually and at reasonable prices. The biggest problem with the RNG boxes is that over time as more skins are added to the mix the price looses value. Yes you will get a skin but as more skins are added over time, the chance of getting a skin you want goes down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @Burnfall.9573 said: > I will put this in simple words: it was never for the best interest of the customers, but for the company. False. If it were in the best interest of the company, then every mount adoption would be completely random, including duplicates. If it were in the best interest of the company, no discount would be offered. If it were in the best interest of the company, you would only be able to purchase them with cash, not gems. If it were in the best interest of the customer, GW2 likely would have started its sunset procedures after HoT release. Something you likely don't understand is that NCSoft *WILL* shut down a game if it doesn't turn enough profit. The only things GW2 has to offer for that are QoL unlocks and skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @MokahTGS.7850 said: > I have to say looking at this model, I'm very disappointed. As a consumer, this is the least attractive way to buy things. I have little interest in purchasing a mount skin because of this tactic that, IMO, seems shady and designed to extract the most money, not provide the most value and fun. Single mount skins are limited and VERY expensive (read=not a good value). > > As a player, I would have much preferred you offer the mount skins individually and at reasonable prices. The biggest problem with the RNG boxes is that over time as more skins are added to the mix the price looses value. Yes you will get a skin but as more skins are added over time, the chance of getting a skin you want goes down. So Anet's reply didn't satisfy you, huh? It's probably because you didn't read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teratus.2859 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 I am honestly not interested in Anet's defense of adoption licences.. I personally think the outrage about it is ridiculous when there is a more serious problem regarding mount skins.. Namely the fact that Anet thought they could charge more or less the same price for one mount skin as they did for an entire expansion pack.. I'm content with the licences.. 400 gems for a skin is incredibly cheap as far as I am concerned.. Frankly I'd much rather buy €10 worth of gems and get 2 mount skins at random with no risk of duplicates than be forced to buy €20-€35 worth of gems just for one single skin.. Anet can go to the realm of torment if they think i'm ever going to pay that kind of money for a single cosmetic skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardenwolfe.8590 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Ahem. Not to point out the obvious, but the mount skins are fluff. They do nothing more than what the base skins do. If someone wants to pay more for the 'pretty' than the expansion, that came out less than a month or so ago, that's on them. I, however, am waiting until Black Friday. A discount/sale may be in order. Either way, it's fluff. People need to keep it in perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @troops.8276 said: > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > > @troops.8276 said: > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > > > > @troops.8276 said: > > > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > > > > > > @troops.8276 said: > > > > > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > > > > > > > > @troops.8276 said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > > > > > > > > > The majority of these votes pretty much amount to "Anet didn't change it the way I wanted? Well then I'm unsatisfied with their reply". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How often do you cave into your kids' temper tantrums and just give them what they want? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Satisfaction is an entirely subjective thing so it'll all ways be a mostly subjective answer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice loaded question but in all honesty, anytime I'm in the wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not a loaded question. Now if you disagree with the analogy, you could answer the question and then argue how it doesn't relate to the topic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A loaded question would have been "Should Anet cave to entitled whiners that throw temper tantrums?" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is a loaded question. 'Temper tantrum' and 'just give them what they want' both those statements imply something beyond neutrality. But still I did answer. "Yes, if I'm in the wrong" > > > > > > > > > > > > So you're saying, as an adult and parent, you cannot discern when a child is being unreasonable and vying for attention? Or understand what is best for children under your care in a general situation? > > > > > > > > > > > > Or are you assuming children never have temper tantrums so the context can be ignored because you feel it's negative? > > > > > > > > > > Are you just trolling? > > > > > It _is_ a loaded question because the parameters were 'temper tantrum' which is to be in the wrong, 'cave in' do something you shouldn't and 'just gave them what they want' which is something they probably shouldn't have. So there can be only one answer, which is why it _is_ a loaded question. The answer I gave was for if it hadn't of been a loaded question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I asked "How often" so there isn't just one answer. I'm not going to lie, when my nephews were younger, and they cried about not getting certain things for Christmas (or pulling that guilt train where they pout and tell you what Jimmy down the street got), I caved and went out to get them stuff they wanted. It's not a "Always" or "Never" answer, but the question is suppose to put these post in context. Even if I concede to it being a loaded question, your victory is bitter because you've completely misunderstood the context. > > > > > > > > But I'll explain it. > > > > > > > > Temper Tantrums are emotional outbursts whose goals are to either a.) get what they want or b.) punish those that didn't give them what they want. I didn't vote in the poll (because forum polls are useless) but without looking, I bet the majority are not happy with Anet's reply either because it doesn't give them what they want or someone didn't punish Anet for what they did. Ignore that they aren't putting more skins in the adoption ticket pool, or that they can't just "undo" this because people already purchased them and it would be a lot of effort to change. They aren't happy because new shinies aren't cheap and choosable and regardless of future additions, they'd rather Anet spend more money "fixing" this than actually keeping the game afloat while taking the moral high ground that they also want Anet to prosper...while also threatening to never give them another dime. > > > > > > > > If that's not grounds to call these responses "temper tantrums" (all for some dang skins, for pete's sake), then I don't know what is. > > > > > > That's a riveting tale but I really don't want your life story. And for all that you said it still doesn't change the simple fact that you clearly only want to see it one way and make the narrative fit and that's without even looking at the replies. > > > > > > > 1 sentence is a life story? Give me a break. > > > > And expressing an opinion contrary to yours isn't "*clearly* only wanting to see the narrative bent one way". How about making some counterpoints? Can't? > > I did. It was simple. Loaded question. And I explained it clearly. > It's okay. You tried :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kichwas.7152 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 If they were actually proud of their artist's work they would make it all for sale individually. Lootboxing it is a tacit admission that they feel, rightly or wrongly, that 90% of their art is crap - but if you're lucky you can get the other 10%... however by lootboxing they hope to manage to sell the crap as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oglaf.1074 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @Kichwas.7152 said: > If they were actually proud of their artist's work they would make it all for sale individually. > > Lootboxing it is a tacit admission that they feel, rightly or wrongly, that 90% of their art is crap - but if you're lucky you can get the other 10%... however by lootboxing they hope to manage to sell the crap as well. > Exactly. The vast majority of the skins (i.e the retextures without anything fancy) does feel like padding to the gambling pool to make the minority of the skins (the ones with fancy effects and whatnot) harder to get, making people buy more Loot Boxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erasculio.2914 Posted November 12, 2017 Author Share Posted November 12, 2017 It's, again, interesting to see how stable the poll results are. Pretty much like in the other poll about the mount skins, results have been stable despite the number of voters doubling. We appear to be more or less on: * Very satisfied: 10% * Moderately satisfied: 10% * More or less: 15% * Moderately not satisfied: 10% * Not satisfied: 35% * Don't care: 15% Rounding down a bit (which accounts for the missing 5%). I wonder what that's a sample of - the forum community? Those willing to vote? Would it accuratelly represent the GW2 community as a whole (which we will never know, of course)? Or maybe it doesn't represent anything but the opinion of those who have voted. Anyway, it's interesting that percentages are again stable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @Oglaf.1074 said: > > @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. The sad thing is that I have a feeling that a few of the "simple" mounts had a lot more time and effort put into them than some of the "flashy" ones, since the flashier ones are usually just using an animated texture or something that can often be very easy to apply. It's hard to guess, but I bet twice as much time was spent on that floppy-eared bunny than on the starfield Jackal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @Ashen.2907 said: > > @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. > It is not impossible to get gems without someone spending money. Its not a large sum, but gems are awarded in AP chests. Ok, but the amount you can get that way is insignificant in relation to the economy. You earn enough for one mount roll every 5000 AP, which takes quite a while to grind out. > @Ayakaru.6583 said: > 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 As I noted above, those are not "free" gems. *You* aren't paying cash for them, but you're buying them off of someone who did, so *someone* paid money to put those gems into the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @"Witch of Doom.5739" said: > > @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. If they don't have some vague idea of which skins best appeal to the marketplace then they aren't particularly good at their jobs. And of course, they could always ask. I mean even at the concept phase, just show concept art for the skins and let players rate which ones they are most interested in. Some would try to "game" that process, I suppose, but the results would still likely be fairly accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @"Leo G.4501" said: > The majority of these votes pretty much amount to "Anet didn't change it the way I wanted? Well then I'm unsatisfied with their reply". > > How often do you cave into your kids' temper tantrums and just give them what they want? In your analogy, which one is "the kids," the players, or ANet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyWolf.8670 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > @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. This. The currency exchange only exists to allow a path to buying gold with real money without it looking like they sell gold. It's not there as a magnanimous way to allow you to buy stuff on the store without money. Someone always pays for the gems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oglaf.1074 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @Erasculio.2914 said: > It's, again, interesting to see how stable the poll results are. Pretty much like in the other poll about the mount skins, results have been stable despite the number of voters doubling. We appear to be more or less on: > > * Very satisfied: 10% > * Moderately satisfied: 10% > * More or less: 15% > * Moderately not satisfied: 10% > * Not satisfied: 35% > * Don't care: 15% > > Rounding down a bit (which accounts for the missing 5%). > > I wonder what that's a sample of - the forum community? Those willing to vote? Would it accuratelly represent the GW2 community as a whole (which we will never know, of course)? Or maybe it doesn't represent anything but the opinion of those who have voted. Anyway, it's interesting that percentages are again stable. To be fair, these kind of polls aren't a good measure because the players who are not satisfied (like myself) are far more likely to go onto the forums, thus seeing the poll and voting. People who simply don't give a hoot about the gambling debacle are probably not browsing this particular topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vesica tempestas.1563 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > The majority of these votes pretty much amount to "Anet didn't change it the way I wanted? Well then I'm unsatisfied with their reply". > > > > How often do you cave into your kids' temper tantrums and just give them what they want? > > In your analogy, which one is "the kids," the players, or ANet? Well since Anet are simply trying to explain their decision process and some players are raising rather chidlish polls its fairly evident. Not everything in life has to be a conspiracy or due to incompetence. Put it this way, people dont tend to act this way in real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noa.7490 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Anet could still have made money and satisfy players involved in "fashion wars" by selling those skins individually on the BLTC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyWolf.8670 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @Kichwas.7152 said: > If they were actually proud of their artist's work they would make it all for sale individually. > > Lootboxing it is a tacit admission that they feel, rightly or wrongly, that 90% of their art is crap - but if you're lucky you can get the other 10%... however by lootboxing they hope to manage to sell the crap as well. > If it had anything to do with the artists' work they could have solved this internally by giving the artist that had the most _selected_ mount for the month a bonus. Note I said selected, not randomly given away. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erasculio.2914 Posted November 12, 2017 Author Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @Oglaf.1074 said: > To be fair, these kind of polls are a good measure because the players who are not satisfied (like myself) are far more likely to go onto the forums, thus seeing the poll and voting. I wonder, though. We do have a lot of forumers who come here to complain... But also a lot of forumers who like the game and enjoy talking about it when they're not playing, and even some forumers whose most contributions to these forums are to defend ArenaNet. There's probably a way to try to quantify this, but I wonder if the bias of "people who come to the forum are mostly the complainers" does really exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheydonBois.9208 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 Even if they didn't want to reward skins for achievements in game, they could have made it like the Black Lion Weapon sets, into a collection. 10AP to complete the collection of 30 mounts, call it Mount Collection I (like the mini collections) and have the unique Jackal skin as a reward for completing the 30 set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Deedra.3126 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 I think there response is fine. I own all 30 of them. My wife got all 30 of them. The only critique I would give them on the delivery of them was they should've considered the people who do not have griffons and put each mount type in its own class. Skimmer, Jackal, Springer, Griffon, Raptor and then give you an RNG drop from that set. I actually like them so much i'm gonna be giving them out to guildies all this week who may not otherwise be able to afford them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted November 12, 2017 Share Posted November 12, 2017 > @"vesica tempestas.1563" said: > > @Ohoni.6057 said: > > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > > The majority of these votes pretty much amount to "Anet didn't change it the way I wanted? Well then I'm unsatisfied with their reply". > > > > > > How often do you cave into your kids' temper tantrums and just give them what they want? > > > > In your analogy, which one is "the kids," the players, or ANet? > > Well since Anet are simply trying to explain their decision process and some players are raising rather chidlish polls its fairly evident. Not everything in life has to be a conspiracy or due to incompetence. Put it this way, people dont tend to act this way in real life. So yeah, ANet would be the kids throwing a tantrum then, "why won't you buy our overpriced gamble boxes?!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now