How About Some Love For ArenaNet??

[MMAI.5892]

> @nosleepdemon.1368 said:

> Recent events on Reddit regarding a certain other publisher certainly do put things in perspective, don't they? Have you guys *seen* the economy in *that* game? Full AAA price, with loot boxes on top that literally are pay to win. A bajillion different currencies and unlocks and crafting and cards and locked characters, all screaming at you to pay money to get passed the grind.

>

> This really puts ArenaNet's "Here's 30 mounts have at it!" attitude into perspective. I'm not saying I agree with loot boxes in *any* form, but I sure am glad I threw my hat in with Gaille and her Krew, instead of those unbelievable kitten hats at that *other* publisher.

>

> So, how about some love for our chums at ArenaNet? Not everything they do is always super popular, but for goodness sake, they are at least still human!

 

There was an old story that my grandfather told me about a common practice in a lot of grocery stores when he was young. They'd put a broom or some other innocuous item next to the register and ring it up on every purchase. If a customer caught it and complained, the cashier would apologize and refund the money. If they didn't, well the store got to sell that broom a few dozen times per day. I think we can both agree that's a shady practice that deserves to be called out even if the store keeps the aisles clean, the shelves stocked, meat fresh, and their competition down the street used higher priced items.

 

 

 

[Loosifah.4738]

> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > @Loosifah.4738 said:

> > > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > > I don't think Anet deserve anything at this point. They used lootbox mechanic for one reason only - money. If all they care is money, we owe them nothing. More cynism towards anet actions from now on.

> >

> > Yes how dare they make a ploy to make more money so they can give us more content. Shame on them!

>

> At which point there is a note on mount box that the result of sale is new content?

>

> Anet is already making money. And as mentioned in NCsoft report - they are doing better than expected. They are not starving or dying. They became greedy. Too many good will and reviews were given for this game at the release so they feel they are unique gem on the market. But they are oh so mistaken.

 

Go play something else then? We pay them once(per expansion) for new content. Even if they are doing better than expected they still use the cash shop money to pay developers(or give them bonuses). The mount RNG boxes **AT LEAST** guarantee a unique mount skin you don't already have.

 

Could it have been implemented better? Yes

Will they do future implementations better? Probably

Will I still buy the occasional RNG mount box to get what I want eventually? It's likely

 

So far I've paid 30 dollars and though I didn't get the skins I wanted; I did get some pretty nice ones anyways. It's just cosmetic stuff. You want to look all spiffy with a special mount? Pay up

[ChrisLew.5492]

> @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

> I've praised ANet many times when I think it is warranted. The best I can say about mount licenses is that they may well be good deals for gamblers, whales and completionists. For anyone else who has any interest in these particular mount skins, the setup is guaranteed to entice spending more than one might choose to were the skins individually priced at an amount the market would bear. In other words, the system is not friendly for what is likely a large consumer demographic.

>

> The carefully-crafted response by Mr. O'Brien encourages the belief that the license sales were designed to be more friendly to consumers. I'd like to believe that. However, the sales plan was also carefully crafted. It comes complete with a supposedly consumer-friendly element (no repeats) which elicits purchasing more than one would be inclined to due to the psychological effect of the sunk-cost fallacy. Sunk-cost thinking is more likely to entice people to go beyond their personal limits than the gambler's fallacy does, except perhaps in people who regularly gamble. ANet completed the sales package with the limited-time bundle price and the anchoring effect of the 2K gem fiery goat skin. The overall marketing strategy, and the we-won't-do-this-again-in-the-next-planned-releases statement make it harder for me to believe ANet had overall consumer interests in mind.

>

> So, the best I can do is to say, "Thanks for designing a mount skin purchase plan which is likely better for your big-ticket customers than other games do."

>

> What I will also say is, "Thanks for avoiding the sale of in-game power in the gem store." That part I do appreciate.

 

Except “sunk-cost” when it applies to real gambling, or truly deplorable cash shops has literally no assurance you will ever get what you want. $120 for 30 different mount skins with no repeats isn’t the worst gouge in the world. I suggest some of you look at the actual fiascos and gambling boxes in other “buy to play” MMORPGs: ESO, Black Desert. I know for a fact you can spend $3000 in ESO trying to get a ‘special’ mount—there’s a post on their forums with someone who did just that. And failed.

 

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @Loosifah.4738 said:

> > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > > @Loosifah.4738 said:

> > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > > > I don't think Anet deserve anything at this point. They used lootbox mechanic for one reason only - money. If all they care is money, we owe them nothing. More cynism towards anet actions from now on.

> > >

> > > Yes how dare they make a ploy to make more money so they can give us more content. Shame on them!

> >

> > At which point there is a note on mount box that the result of sale is new content?

> >

> > Anet is already making money. And as mentioned in NCsoft report - they are doing better than expected. They are not starving or dying. They became greedy. Too many good will and reviews were given for this game at the release so they feel they are unique gem on the market. But they are oh so mistaken.

>

> Go play something else then? We pay them once(per expansion) for new content. Even if they are doing better than expected they still use the cash shop money to pay developers(or give them bonuses). The mount RNG boxes **AT LEAST** guarantee a unique mount skin you don't already have.

>

> Could it have been implemented better? Yes

> Will they do future implementations better? Probably

> Will I still buy the occasional RNG mount box to get what I want eventually? It's likely

>

> So far I've paid 30 dollars and though I didn't get the skins I wanted; I did get some pretty nice ones anyways. It's just cosmetic stuff. You want to look all spiffy with a special mount? Pay up

 

I paid them to. And money is all they get from me, but not love or positive press. Unless they pay me. Easy.

[nosleepdemon.1368]

I'm not praising them for loot boxes, those are pretty bad. I'm just saying that the draw to the dark side is strong, yet it seems like ANet have at least considered a humane approach, and are open to suggestion on how future mount sales might be improved. That does at least deserve a nod imo.

[Loosifah.4738]

I remember the RNG loot boxes for the perfect world Halloween event. I sunk quite a bit of money and all of my in game money trying to get that damned flaming horse and never got anything remotely worth it out of the boxes.

[Haishao.6851]

> @Loosifah.4738 said:

> I remember the RNG loot boxes for the perfect world Halloween event. I sunk quite a bit of money and all of my in game money trying to get that damned flaming horse and never got anything remotely worth it out of the boxes.

 

At least you're proud of your accomplishment.

 

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @ChrisLew.5492 said:

> > @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

> > stuff

>

> Except “sunk-cost” when it applies to real gambling, or truly deplorable cash shops has literally no assurance you will ever get what you want. $120 for 30 different mount skins with no repeats isn’t the worst gouge in the world. I suggest some of you look at the actual fiascos and gambling boxes in other “buy to play” MMORPGs: ESO, Black Desert. I know for a fact you can spend $3000 in ESO trying to get a ‘special’ mount—there’s a post on their forums with someone who did just that. And failed.

>

 

Sunk-cost thinking can certainly apply to the licenses, and may be worse for some people than truly random loot boxes. Each failed purchase brings one closer to one's goal. People who set and usually stick to spending limits for discretionary purchases are more likely to think, "I've wasted this much, I may as well continue."

 

So, are the licenses better than Black Lion Keys? For some people, sure. For those who want to pay a fair price for an item to enhance their fun in a game, maybe not. There is nothing admirable or praiseworthy about a floating price for a virtual item.

[Sarge shot Grif.6450]

Hm, No.

Someone with worse behavior does not invalidate anets behavior. Still digusted, still lost my trust.

[Loosifah.4738]

You know I could see where your argument was coming from if this was some game breaking thing you needed to have to compete. But it's not. It's simply a way to make your mount look different. It in no way affects the gameplay at all.

 

So what I'm hearing is "You betrayed me by putting in cosmetics that I don't need; but really really want and I can't choose my own"

 

Womp womp

[Loosifah.4738]

That's one hell of a comparison for a video game company that added RNG mount skin boxes.

[Fig.8257]

To be perfectly honest, at least from my point of view, the licences were a perfectly fine system so long as that wasn't the only method in which they released skins and if they didn't add new skins to each set thereby decreasing chances further. It definitely beats 2k gems for a single mount. It wasn't much different from the black lion chests, except for the guaranteed aspect of it. The system isn't very predatory either. People just want something to scream bloody murder about..couldnt they wait until the balance patch or LS episode to raise their pitchforks :anguished: I might be the vocalized minority on here but if they also offered skins in other ways aswell it would have benefited everyone. But hey maybe they'll make legendaries a reward for monthly login that way everyone gets everything.

[Cyninja.2954]

The comparisons some people make, the pure entitlement that seeps out of some comments. Guess what, things are going to get even worse down the road.

 

Why? Because as GW2 grows older and the playerbase declines and revenue dries up, more drastic methods of monetisation will be required to keep the game working with this kind of monetisation method (no pay to win, cosmetics mostly from gem store, no subscription fee, living world updates inbetween expansions).

 

Was the mount addition not well received? Sure, it could have been handled better. I personally was/am more concerned with what this says about the state of the monetisation which arenanet are willing to try more than the:"Waaaaah, I can't get the skins I want."

 

It was clear mounts would be gemstore only and huge money grabs ever since gliders were gemstore only with the start of HoT. Don't like it? Start asking for a subscription fee or buy more gems so the accounting department at arenanet does not have to look for new ways how to squeez money from players. People wanted a cheaper expansion price with PoF, there done. Now live with some of the consequences.

 

About EA, they've been basically the devil for years now, winning multiple worst company of the year awards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerist) and being a main drive behind more gambling and continous monetisation in gaming. To even compare them to arenanet is an insult, even with some shady cosmetic pricing on 1 issue.

 

EDIT: got to add in my praise to arenanet because quite frankly, after 4,470 hours still having fun and coming back to the game means they must have done a lot more right than wrong for me. More people should occasionally take a chill pill and not get over obsessed over a bunch of pixels, especially when those pixels are only cosmetic.

[Malediktus.9250]

The love is in a chest with 30 different emotions. 5 dollars per try

[Cantatus.4065]

I think the fact that Anet generally does a good job and shows a lot of love for the game is part of the reason the outrage was as as vocal as it was. People love this game and don't want to see the developer taking actions which might hurt it, and in this climate, people hearing that GW2 is doubling down on loot boxes only makes it harder to convince people to try or return to the game. And from what I saw, people have mostly been respectful to Anet in their feedback, largely because Anet has earned that respect over the years. Despite all the complaints about Battlefront II, people expect that sort of behavior from EA. It's been pretty clear they've been a money grubbing company that will do anything to squeeze as much money out of people as possible. People don't want to see this game headed in a similar direction, even if it's far less egregious. People understand this game needs to make money, but they also understand there are good and bad ways of doing that.

 

Anet _does_ deserve praise, but they also deserve to be called out from time to time.

[Renim.6921]

> @Cyninja.2954 said:

> The comparisons some people make, the pure entitlement that seeps out of some comments. Guess what, things are going to get even worse down the road.

>

> Why? Because as GW2 grows older and the playerbase declines and revenue dries up, more drastic methods of monetisation will be required to keep the game working with this kind of monetisation method (no pay to win, cosmetics mostly from gem store, no subscription fee, living world updates inbetween expansions).

>

> Was the mount addition not well received? Sure, it could have been handled better. I personally was/am more concerned with what this says about the state of the monetisation which arenanet are willing to try more than the:"Waaaaah, I can't get the skins I want."

>

> It was clear mounts would be gemstore only and huge money grabs ever since gliders were gemstore only with the start of HoT. Don't like it? Start asking for a subscription fee or buy more gems so the accounting department at arenanet does not have to look for new ways how to squeez money from players. People wanted a cheaper expansion price with PoF, there done. Now live with some of the consequences.

>

> About EA, they've been basically the devil for years now, winning multiple worst company of the year awards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerist) and being a main drive behind more gambling and continous monetisation in gaming. To even compare them to arenanet is an insult, even with some shady cosmetic pricing on 1 issue.

>

> EDIT: got to add in my praise to arenanet because quite frankly, after 4,470 hours still having fun and coming back to the game means they must have done a lot more right than wrong for me. More people should occasionally take a chill pill and not get over obsessed over a bunch of pixels, especially when those pixels are only cosmetic.

 

I would much rather have a subscription fee at this point. The game is remaining uninstalled and no more money spent until they remove the loot boxes and make them a direct purchase.

 

Shady business practice is shady business practice. ArenaNET deserves the vast criticism they received for this, and will likely continue to receive down the line.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @Renim.6921 said:

> > @Cyninja.2954 said:

> > The comparisons some people make, the pure entitlement that seeps out of some comments. Guess what, things are going to get even worse down the road.

> >

> > Why? Because as GW2 grows older and the playerbase declines and revenue dries up, more drastic methods of monetisation will be required to keep the game working with this kind of monetisation method (no pay to win, cosmetics mostly from gem store, no subscription fee, living world updates inbetween expansions).

> >

> > Was the mount addition not well received? Sure, it could have been handled better. I personally was/am more concerned with what this says about the state of the monetisation which arenanet are willing to try more than the:"Waaaaah, I can't get the skins I want."

> >

> > It was clear mounts would be gemstore only and huge money grabs ever since gliders were gemstore only with the start of HoT. Don't like it? Start asking for a subscription fee or buy more gems so the accounting department at arenanet does not have to look for new ways how to squeez money from players. People wanted a cheaper expansion price with PoF, there done. Now live with some of the consequences.

> >

> > About EA, they've been basically the devil for years now, winning multiple worst company of the year awards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerist) and being a main drive behind more gambling and continous monetisation in gaming. To even compare them to arenanet is an insult, even with some shady cosmetic pricing on 1 issue.

> >

> > EDIT: got to add in my praise to arenanet because quite frankly, after 4,470 hours still having fun and coming back to the game means they must have done a lot more right than wrong for me. More people should occasionally take a chill pill and not get over obsessed over a bunch of pixels, especially when those pixels are only cosmetic.

>

> I would much rather have a subscription fee at this point. The game is remaining uninstalled and no more money spent until they remove the loot boxes and make them a direct purchase.

>

> Shady business practice is shady business practice. ArenaNET deserves the vast criticism they received for this, and will likely continue to receive down the line.

 

Guess what, me too, that way most of these issues and complaining would shift towards other areas which more deserve it instead of:"Oh the game I spent the literally minimum amount I had to price wise (with people even going to unsupported 3rd party keyseller sites and advertising those on the official forums to save 5-6 bucks) which I have played for over x-thousand amount of hours needs to make money but I want free stuff."

 

That said, there is other subscription games (looking at you WoW) which charge you monthly AND sell some of the best cosmetics and mount skins in a cash shop, yet people love giving Blizzard their money, but as soon as a buy to play game from Arenanet needs to make money the world goes under.

 

[Firelily.7534]

/Love @ ArenaNet

 

[Tsakhi.8124]

I have quite a bit of love for the game, I'm dispassionate about businesses, because, well they're businesses and I'm not going to love the dollar sign. I, of course, appreciate the people running the business, although there were some tactics that... were questionable. This game is the only way I can communicate with people on the outside; I have severe social anxiety, so, this game is essential regarding my health. <3 *gathers all of A-Net employees and snuggles them*

[Norseman.4280]

> @Zakka.2153 said:

> How about no, and we stop pretending that these types of business practices are ok. Developers and Companies should strive to make their service excellent not nickel and dime their consumers any given chance.

 

You buy a game for dirt cheap, play it as much as you want with no subscription fee at all, and when cosmetic items are priced more than you'd like, you're being nickel and dimed?

It's not even pay to win. Anet is trying to keep the lights on. Lets face it, we know the game has been on a slow decline since the beginning and they're trying everything to keep it going for us.

I'll let them try things and learn, to find what works. No big deal. I have a game to play that I enjoy.

[Ayakaru.6583]

> @kurfu.5623 said:

> Just because EA is much more evil, that doesn't make GW2's mount gambling box any less of a fiasco.

 

Nor does endlessly ranting about it validate it being a fiasco. Everyone's cutting of their heads when is this far, very far, from their worst decisions yet. It was bad design, but while I'm disappointed at anet, I'm more or less also disappointed with the playerbase's overreaction

[minion.1987]

black lion chests are loot boxes. just because it's called a chest doesn't mean it's not a box.

[Svarty.8019]

Continued focus on aspects of the game that I'm not interested in combined with continued incompetence with regards to the aspects of the game that I am interested in mean that I have little love for the company.

 

I am aware, however, that the individuals who work for it are normal(ish) humans who are probably all very lovely.

[Tekey.7946]

> @Cyninja.2954 said:

> The comparisons some people make, the pure entitlement that seeps out of some comments. Guess what, **things are going to get even worse down the road.**

>

> Why? Because as GW2 grows older and the playerbase declines and revenue dries up, **more drastic methods of monetisation will be required to keep the game working** with this kind of monetisation method (no pay to win, cosmetics mostly from gem store, no subscription fee, living world updates inbetween expansions).

 

So, seems like the best time to leave now, right? Leaving the sinking ship, so to say, before they will go completely crazy with those _"new ways to squeeze money out of the players"_ like you called it:

 

> @Cyninja.2954 said:

> Don't like it? **Start asking for a subscription fee** or buy more gems so the accounting department at arenanet does not **have to look for new ways how to squeez money from players.** People wanted a cheaper expansion price with PoF, there done. Now live with some of the consequences.

 

The amount, pace and quality of the content GW2 pushes out won't justify a subscription fee. GW2 has a history of huge content droughts, half-baked expansions (HoT legendaries still missing 2+ years after release) or one-time-play-through xpacs without replayability (PoF), constantly introducing new systems (Living World Season 1) then scrapping them again, dungeons are dead, **3** new fractal stories in **4 years** (November 2013 - 2017), the last raid wing was added more than **9 months ago**.

 

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Release

 

Overall, GW2 sounds more like an experimental Early Access project with 5 people working on it rather than a top-tier MMORPG that would deserve a subscription fee. Sometimes it's hard to believe they have 300-400 employees.

Even more so, if you think of the much smaller team that created GW1 and pushed out **3 full campaigns** and **1 expansion** in **2 years and 4 months**. And they didn't have a subscription fee. The only cosmetic items you could buy in the GW1 store were some costumes, other than that they sold character slots, bank slots and the like. You played the game and earned your rewards without pulling out your credit card.

 

So if GW2 is too large and too costly to develop, if they need to put all content in the gem store, I wouldn't mind seeing Anet getting back to a smaller team, pushing out a game like GW1 at a faster pace again. I would buy it.

[Tekey.7946]

doublepost