jheryn.8390 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 I think it is a general consensus that the mount skin acquisition was awful. I hate it too. However, it has become mass hysteria and has blown into a freaking mob mentality. It is just way beyond the pale. Anet has created an amazing game and what did they do that has players wanting to start a March on Washington? A loot box. Unbelievable. I'll throw my praise in to Anet. They have made an amazing game that will keep me playing for years. Path of Fire was amazing. It's all amazing. So you had a big mistake in the current mount skin boxes. Who doesn't screw up once in a while? Thanks for the great game Anet people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @jheryn.8390 said: > I think it is a general consensus that the mount skin acquisition was awful. I hate it too. However, it has become mass hysteria and has blown into a freaking mob mentality. It is just way beyond the pale. > > Anet has created an amazing game and what did they do that has players wanting to start a March on Washington? A loot box. Unbelievable. > > I'll throw my praise in to Anet. They have made an amazing game that will keep me playing for years. Path of Fire was amazing. It's all amazing. So you had a big mistake in the current mount skin boxes. Who doesn't screw up once in a while? Thanks for the great game Anet people. If you actually read the OP instead of just the title, this is what we are all responding to: > @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. The OP is directly referencing the gamble boxes and saying that at least Anet isn't as bad as "the other publisher". Many of us are saying that seems to be the direction Anet is trying to take and we want to be sure to nip it in the bud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tekey.7946 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @Cyninja.2954 said: > > @TheRandomGuy.7246 said: > > I've yet to see a significant amount of high quality armors, weapons, mounts, gliders, and outfits added to the "horizontal progression" game. > > Please read up what optional means. > Please tell us how they're optional in a game consisting of nothing but horizontal progression, often called **Fashion Wars** for a reason. Again, looking at Guild Wars 1 where almost all cosmetics (except for the costumes) could be earned by playing the game, which kept the players busy. If there are not enough rewards to keep the people playing the game, why should they stick to the game and bother buying anything in the gem store? They will leave again after they played through the story every 3 months. Anet started selling 'level 80 boosters', 'waypoint unlock packages' and really, really **expensive shared inventory slots** lately. They're selling character slot expansions, bank tab expansions, storage expansions, bag slot expansions, transmutation charges, VIP area passes, copper/silver fed salvage kits, hair and total makeover kits, name change contracts, unlimited gathering tools, toys, musical instruments, home instance material nodes, dye packs, mail carriers, and if you missed some, even Living World episodes. But that's not enough? Apparently, they also need to sell **tons of** single armor pieces, outfits, expensive minis, almost **every single glider skin that exists** (except for 3), and **every single mount skin that exists in the game** -> even more drastically in a random way. Even if you know that GW2 is more expensive to maintain/develop, you'll start to wonder how GW1 was even able to exist **without** having an omnipresent gem store. Here's another way of earning money: **sell boxed copies**. The faster you're able to push out **full expansions** (not one hour of living story every 3 months), the more money you can earn by selling copies, maybe even more people will play the game because of the fast release of new expansions. But it feels like even though the GW2 team seems to be twice as large, it takes 10 x more time to push out content compared to GW1. 70 people were working on PoF, 3 smaller teams released Living World episodes every 2-3 months. The dungeons team is non-existent, I'm not sure how big the fractals team is (but they can't keep up the pace), and the raid team is really, really small as far as I know. How does that equal 300-400 people at Anet? What is everyone else doing all day long? Maybe the gem store team has 200 pepole, that would explain a lot. > @Cyninja.2954 said: > Simple, the better a game does financially, the more freedom the developer has to do things the way they want to. do things the way they want to... Also means if the head of Anet simply wants to see more money, they will continue to go further and further. Where is the line? At which point would Anet be more consumer friendly again? Will they stop at x million $ and remove black lion chests? Will they begin to introduce glider and mount skins as game rewards at some point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @Cyninja.2954 said: > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > @Feanor.2358 said: > > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > > > @Feanor.2358 said: > > > > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > > > > > @Feanor.2358 said: > > > > > > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > > > > > > > @Feanor.2358 said: > > > > > > > > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > > > > > > > > > @Feanor.2358 said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @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! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm just going to throw one more thing about the 30 mount skins. You know, as food for thought.> @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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See, this kind of attitude is precisely why developers are forced into exploring various monetization methods. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Forced? Anet is doing better than expected financially. This means that new mount license is motivated only by greed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you know that? You don't have information about their revenues, nor you have information about their expenses. You're just guessing and drawing conclusions from it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read last NCsoft financial report. And by read I mean read, not just look at the chart. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Vayne.8563 said: > > > > > > > > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > > > > > > > > > @Feanor.2358 said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @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! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm just going to throw one more thing about the 30 mount skins. You know, as food for thought.> @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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See, this kind of attitude is precisely why developers are forced into exploring various monetization methods. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Forced? Anet is doing better than expected financially. This means that new mount license is motivated only by greed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > People keep saying this. But the better than expected is not Anet or NcSoft's expecations only a stock company that makes predictions. It did better than that cmpany expected. No one here knows how much profit the game makes or doesn't make. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It means they got more money than they planned so they have more money to cover expenses and grow. And anet grew since HoT. They do not starve. They have money. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It means nothing of the sort. Good financial results for NCSoft do not mean a thing about ANet. You don't know their internal contracts and relationships. ANet might not be seeing a penny out of the good financial results. Or they might be getting funding even if their products are losing money. You don't know how much they are getting, you don't know how much they are burning on development costs, and you don't know how much they are spending on marketing. Again, you're taking wild guesses and drawing conclusions based on them. > > > > > > > > > > > > If I am to follow your logic, there is no reason we should in any way pay anet more - if you assume only ncsoft benefits from it, we should stop funding them instantly. > > > > > > > > > > The only thing you can be certain about is, if we stop funding them, the game dies. So if you want to keep playing it, you should keep paying, even though you can't know how much of it goes to ANet. > > > > > > > > > > > > So your logic is: > > > > a) financial report is better than expected - it's bad anyway because ncsoft must steal their moneh - game dies > > > > b) we stop paying - game dies > > > > > > > > I have a difficulty in understanding why should I care about any of this? Anet is a bussiness. If they don't get money, they should just close the bussiness. Since they are still around, they most likely get the money, which means there is no reason to look panic. Also, it's their job to look for money, not ours. We are customers, not their fundraisers. If they create a product worth the money, people will pay for it. Simple. > > > > > > > > Bussiness is cynical. They don't care about you or me as people, they cafe about our wallets. There is no reason to offer them anything besides our money. > > > > > > Again, people will only pay if they have no other options. And they will complain doing it. And they will act as if they somehow *deserve* to pay less. No, they don't. Like I've said already, gaming is too cheap. It was cheap historically and people grew accustomed to this, began to think it's OK for it to be cheap. What you're seeing now is just the equalization of the market. And it is driven in no small part by the way of thinking you're displaying. Attitude like that is widely spread and it doesn't leave developers much choice. Gamedev becomes more and more a cold-blooded business because *you* are making it so. With your own choice to perceive it like one. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy which you created yourselves. > > > > Thank god I'm not paying for anything but expansion boxes since HoT. > > Thank god other people pay your share of developement and upkeep costs so the game which you hopefully enjoy keeps running. Actually I would never care about this game if it had sub fee. It doesn't deserve one. But it doesn't mean anet is justified to exploit weaker players with gambling practices :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jheryn.8390 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @Djinn.9245 said: > > @jheryn.8390 said: > > I think it is a general consensus that the mount skin acquisition was awful. I hate it too. However, it has become mass hysteria and has blown into a freaking mob mentality. It is just way beyond the pale. > > > > Anet has created an amazing game and what did they do that has players wanting to start a March on Washington? A loot box. Unbelievable. > > > > I'll throw my praise in to Anet. They have made an amazing game that will keep me playing for years. Path of Fire was amazing. It's all amazing. So you had a big mistake in the current mount skin boxes. Who doesn't screw up once in a while? Thanks for the great game Anet people. > > If you actually read the OP instead of just the title, this is what we are all responding to: First off, my original post was deleted because I quoted someone whose post was deleted. I actually posted not to long after your first post. Secondly, if you actually read my post instead of skimming it for key words to admonish with, you would understand that I think that those of you responding snidely about the mount skins as you have are being ridiculous. I agree with the OP. Anet deserves love for the amazing game they created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galmac.4680 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 ANet gets from me that amount of love that they are giving to necros. ;) :# Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @jheryn.8390 said: > > @Djinn.9245 said: > > > @jheryn.8390 said: > > > I think it is a general consensus that the mount skin acquisition was awful. I hate it too. However, it has become mass hysteria and has blown into a freaking mob mentality. It is just way beyond the pale. > > > > > > Anet has created an amazing game and what did they do that has players wanting to start a March on Washington? A loot box. Unbelievable. > > > > > > I'll throw my praise in to Anet. They have made an amazing game that will keep me playing for years. Path of Fire was amazing. It's all amazing. So you had a big mistake in the current mount skin boxes. Who doesn't screw up once in a while? Thanks for the great game Anet people. > > > > If you actually read the OP instead of just the title, this is what we are all responding to: > > First off, my original post was deleted because I quoted someone whose post was deleted. I actually posted not to long after your first post. > > Secondly, if you actually read my post instead of skimming it for key words to admonish with, you would understand that I think that those of you responding snidely about the mount skins as you have are being ridiculous. > > I agree with the OP. Anet deserves love for the amazing game they created. I'm sorry you read some kind of negative emotion into my post. I was simply providing some information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor.2358 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @Djinn.9245 said: > > @Feanor.2358 said: > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > > @Feanor.2358 said: > > > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > > > > @Feanor.2358 said: > > > > > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > > > > > > @Feanor.2358 said: > > > > > > > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > > > > > > > > @Feanor.2358 said: > > > > > > > > > > > @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! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm just going to throw one more thing about the 30 mount skins. You know, as food for thought.> @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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See, this kind of attitude is precisely why developers are forced into exploring various monetization methods. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Forced? Anet is doing better than expected financially. This means that new mount license is motivated only by greed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you know that? You don't have information about their revenues, nor you have information about their expenses. You're just guessing and drawing conclusions from it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read last NCsoft financial report. And by read I mean read, not just look at the chart. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Vayne.8563 said: > > > > > > > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > > > > > > > > @Feanor.2358 said: > > > > > > > > > > > @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! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm just going to throw one more thing about the 30 mount skins. You know, as food for thought.> @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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See, this kind of attitude is precisely why developers are forced into exploring various monetization methods. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Forced? Anet is doing better than expected financially. This means that new mount license is motivated only by greed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > People keep saying this. But the better than expected is not Anet or NcSoft's expecations only a stock company that makes predictions. It did better than that cmpany expected. No one here knows how much profit the game makes or doesn't make. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It means they got more money than they planned so they have more money to cover expenses and grow. And anet grew since HoT. They do not starve. They have money. > > > > > > > > > > > > It means nothing of the sort. Good financial results for NCSoft do not mean a thing about ANet. You don't know their internal contracts and relationships. ANet might not be seeing a penny out of the good financial results. Or they might be getting funding even if their products are losing money. You don't know how much they are getting, you don't know how much they are burning on development costs, and you don't know how much they are spending on marketing. Again, you're taking wild guesses and drawing conclusions based on them. > > > > > > > > > > If I am to follow your logic, there is no reason we should in any way pay anet more - if you assume only ncsoft benefits from it, we should stop funding them instantly. > > > > > > > > The only thing you can be certain about is, if we stop funding them, the game dies. So if you want to keep playing it, you should keep paying, even though you can't know how much of it goes to ANet. > > > > > > > > > So your logic is: > > > a) financial report is better than expected - it's bad anyway because ncsoft must steal their moneh - game dies > > > b) we stop paying - game dies > > > > > > I have a difficulty in understanding why should I care about any of this? Anet is a bussiness. If they don't get money, they should just close the bussiness. Since they are still around, they most likely get the money, which means there is no reason to look panic. Also, it's their job to look for money, not ours. We are customers, not their fundraisers. If they create a product worth the money, people will pay for it. Simple. > > > > > > Bussiness is cynical. They don't care about you or me as people, they cafe about our wallets. There is no reason to offer them anything besides our money. > > > > Again, people will only pay if they have no other options. And they will complain doing it. And they will act as if they somehow *deserve* to pay less. > > Perhaps SOME people are like that, but not all. I'm sure you don't put yourself in that category, and I have gladly purchased many gems to get many ITEMS THAT I CHOOSE from the gemstore. This is the first real criticism I've had about the gemstore, but unfortunately it is a major issue with me. > Look, I'm not happy with lottery tickets. I don't consider mount skins such, but that's beside the point. The point is, the search for new monetization methods is usually driven by diminishing revenues. If sales are fine you just keep using what's working. In the specific case of the mount skins I imagine they also wanted to create a large enough pool of skins to start with. They either had to only release bundles like the Halloween one or think of something different. Releasing one skin at a time like they did with gliders wouldn't be much good, as players favoring a different type of mount will be effectively discouraged from buying. And the bundles have the drawback of forcing all the skins into a single theme. What they did allowed them to get more creative and they really did some amazing skins. I understand that most people just want 1-2 of them and want to pay 400 gems for each and be done with it. But that brings us back to the revenues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor.2358 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @Tekey.7946 said: > > @Cyninja.2954 said: > > > @TheRandomGuy.7246 said: > > > I've yet to see a significant amount of high quality armors, weapons, mounts, gliders, and outfits added to the "horizontal progression" game. > > > > Please read up what optional means. > > > > Please tell us how they're optional in a game consisting of nothing but horizontal progression, often called **Fashion Wars** for a reason. Again, looking at Guild Wars 1 where almost all cosmetics (except for the costumes) could be earned by playing the game, which kept the players busy. All the cosmetics can be earned by playing GW2 as well. Gold to gems conversion. You want long-term goals? Buying out all the mount skins will take about 3k. That's at least few months of play, unless you grind excessively for it. So what exactly are you unhappy about? Lack of long-term goals? Too long long-term goals? Pick one. Complaining for both at the same time doesn't make any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djinn.9245 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @Feanor.2358 said: > > @Djinn.9245 said: > > > @Feanor.2358 said: > > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > > > @Feanor.2358 said: > > > > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > > > > > @Feanor.2358 said: > > > > > > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > > > > > > > @Feanor.2358 said: > > > > > > > > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > > > > > > > > > @Feanor.2358 said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @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! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm just going to throw one more thing about the 30 mount skins. You know, as food for thought.> @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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See, this kind of attitude is precisely why developers are forced into exploring various monetization methods. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Forced? Anet is doing better than expected financially. This means that new mount license is motivated only by greed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you know that? You don't have information about their revenues, nor you have information about their expenses. You're just guessing and drawing conclusions from it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Read last NCsoft financial report. And by read I mean read, not just look at the chart. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Vayne.8563 said: > > > > > > > > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > > > > > > > > > @Feanor.2358 said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @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! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm just going to throw one more thing about the 30 mount skins. You know, as food for thought.> @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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See, this kind of attitude is precisely why developers are forced into exploring various monetization methods. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Forced? Anet is doing better than expected financially. This means that new mount license is motivated only by greed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > People keep saying this. But the better than expected is not Anet or NcSoft's expecations only a stock company that makes predictions. It did better than that cmpany expected. No one here knows how much profit the game makes or doesn't make. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It means they got more money than they planned so they have more money to cover expenses and grow. And anet grew since HoT. They do not starve. They have money. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It means nothing of the sort. Good financial results for NCSoft do not mean a thing about ANet. You don't know their internal contracts and relationships. ANet might not be seeing a penny out of the good financial results. Or they might be getting funding even if their products are losing money. You don't know how much they are getting, you don't know how much they are burning on development costs, and you don't know how much they are spending on marketing. Again, you're taking wild guesses and drawing conclusions based on them. > > > > > > > > > > > > If I am to follow your logic, there is no reason we should in any way pay anet more - if you assume only ncsoft benefits from it, we should stop funding them instantly. > > > > > > > > > > The only thing you can be certain about is, if we stop funding them, the game dies. So if you want to keep playing it, you should keep paying, even though you can't know how much of it goes to ANet. > > > > > > > > > > > > So your logic is: > > > > a) financial report is better than expected - it's bad anyway because ncsoft must steal their moneh - game dies > > > > b) we stop paying - game dies > > > > > > > > I have a difficulty in understanding why should I care about any of this? Anet is a bussiness. If they don't get money, they should just close the bussiness. Since they are still around, they most likely get the money, which means there is no reason to look panic. Also, it's their job to look for money, not ours. We are customers, not their fundraisers. If they create a product worth the money, people will pay for it. Simple. > > > > > > > > Bussiness is cynical. They don't care about you or me as people, they cafe about our wallets. There is no reason to offer them anything besides our money. > > > > > > Again, people will only pay if they have no other options. And they will complain doing it. And they will act as if they somehow *deserve* to pay less. > > > > Perhaps SOME people are like that, but not all. I'm sure you don't put yourself in that category, and I have gladly purchased many gems to get many ITEMS THAT I CHOOSE from the gemstore. This is the first real criticism I've had about the gemstore, but unfortunately it is a major issue with me. > > > > Look, I'm not happy with lottery tickets. I don't consider mount skins such, but that's beside the point. The point is, the search for new monetization methods is usually driven by diminishing revenues. If sales are fine you just keep using what's working. > > In the specific case of the mount skins I imagine they also wanted to create a large enough pool of skins to start with. They either had to only release bundles like the Halloween one or think of something different. Releasing one skin at a time like they did with gliders wouldn't be much good, as players favoring a different type of mount will be effectively discouraged from buying. And the bundles have the drawback of forcing all the skins into a single theme. What they did allowed them to get more creative and they really did some amazing skins. I understand that most people just want 1-2 of them and want to pay 400 gems for each and be done with it. But that brings us back to the revenues. I understand the concept, I just think that the manipulation of gamble boxes is a deplorable method of trying to get more money out of your customers. And it's just a shame for both them and me that they won't be getting any money from me for mount skins. Less money for them and me disappointed in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crossaber.8934 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 Actually i prefer my original mount, since i don't have plan of getting griffon, i will skip the license anyway. Did i at any disadvantage compare to others who did purchase the skins? Not at all. If there is any improvement can be done, separate the skin by mount type, same gem price each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tekey.7946 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @Feanor.2358 said: > All the cosmetics can be earned by playing GW2 as well. Gold to gems conversion. You want long-term goals? Buying out all the mount skins will take about 3k. That's at least few months of play, unless you grind excessively for it. So what exactly are you unhappy about? Lack of long-term goals? Too long long-term goals? Pick one. Complaining for both at the same time doesn't make any sense. Have fun advertising your game to the people when you suggest grinding gold for gems in order to buy your rewards from a gem store to be endgame content. If you consider mindlessly farming 3000 gold in the Silverwastes to be the same as getting specific rewards by playing certain parts of the game, then congratulations, this game will make you happy. It's exactly as shallow as a generic asian grinder mmorpg. Great game design! Other games were labeled as pay2win even though you could grind 24 hours 7 days a week in order to get to the same level as people who paid lots of money. But everything's okay because theoretically you could reach the same point **without money**, right? There's currently another thread going on, it's called something like: "Does this game feel rewarding?", also several threads on reddit came up lately. Maybe it's worth reading if you think this is what keeps people playing the game. EDIT: Speaking of grinding vs. paying: Unlocking Everything in Battlefront II Requires 4528 hours or $2100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashantara.8731 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @kurfu.5623 said: > Just because EA is much more evil, that doesn't make GW2's mount gambling box any less of a fiasco. Exactly. It's like comparing Hilary Clinton to Donald Trump during last year's US elections: choose the lesser of two evils. I really hate when people are trying to use that as a valid argument: "But, but, but... look at how much worse [_insert variable name_] is doing! We can count ourselves lucky compared to that!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khisanth.2948 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @Aylaine.1036 said: > > @kurfu.5623 said: > > Just because EA is much more evil, that doesn't make GW2's mount gambling box any less of a fiasco. > The situation was bad, but I feel like the responses that the BF2 Community got and the one we got are evidence enough that ANet knows they messed up and will make changes. With the whole EA thing becoming more of a true fiasco, it's easy for other developers to look at that and probably say it's not worth it. That post did not read anything like a "Sorry, we made a mistake" it was more of a "We did nothing wrong. The timing was just unfortunately timed with other things in the gaming industry." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matick.4132 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 OP, if I may. I wrote a lot about this love in my post. So if you don't mind I put in a link to this. Re-writing it would be a double post, to be honest. But to add my two cents to this here, too. This whole shitstorm is all about the love for the game and of course the artists, that made this awesome world. If it wouldn't matter, no one would be that outraged! So here's my long two cents thingy: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/15464/what-about-a-dialogue-for-a-change-anet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor.2358 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @Tekey.7946 said: > > @Feanor.2358 said: > > All the cosmetics can be earned by playing GW2 as well. Gold to gems conversion. You want long-term goals? Buying out all the mount skins will take about 3k. That's at least few months of play, unless you grind excessively for it. So what exactly are you unhappy about? Lack of long-term goals? Too long long-term goals? Pick one. Complaining for both at the same time doesn't make any sense. > > Have fun advertising your game to the people when you suggest grinding gold for gems in order to buy your rewards from a gem store to be endgame content. > > If you consider mindlessly farming 3000 gold in the Silverwastes to be the same as getting specific rewards by playing certain parts of the game, then congratulations, this game will make you happy. It's exactly as shallow as a generic asian grinder mmorpg. Great game design! I fail to see the difference between grinding gold and grinding specific content over and over for some currency/drop/whatever. In the end, long-term goals *always* end up in grind. There's no way around that, because content is exhausted orders of magnitude faster than it is produced. If anything, grinding gold is a bit more flexible because it doesn't force you into doing something specific. I never said (and never will) to go grind SW for 3k gold. The thing is, you can get 3k gold very easily, doing just about what you want. Dividing my account value by my total hours played, I've averaged over 20g/hr and I never grinded anything. Of course, some of that can't be converted to liquid gold. Let's suppose I've also done more farming than the average player. I've done some multiloot, I've played a lot of metas and I sometimes hop on champ trains. I've enjoyed all that, but no matter. Let's be conservative and say the average player gets 10 g/hr in assets that can be converted to gold. Meaning the mount skins take about 300 hrs in the game. That's a decent scale for a long-term goal and it is comparable to that of the legendaries, the other available long-term goal. I see absolutely no base for complaints. Mount skins are literally the horizontal fashion progression you want and the game always featured. They're on the same scale, require the same effort and are obtainable in exactly the same manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khisanth.2948 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @jheryn.8390 said: > I think it is a general consensus that the mount skin acquisition was awful. I hate it too. However, it has become mass hysteria and has blown into a freaking mob mentality. It is just way beyond the pale. > > **Anet has created an amazing game and what did they do that has players wanting to start a March on Washington? A loot box. Unbelievable.** > > I'll throw my praise in to Anet. They have made an amazing game that will keep me playing for years. Path of Fire was amazing. It's all amazing. So you had a big mistake in the current mount skin boxes. Who doesn't screw up once in a while? Thanks for the great game Anet people. Depends on which Washington you are referring to. DC would be an awful choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pah.4931 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 I have been giving them love for days! It's hard arguing emotionlessly, trying to use only logic and reason, with people who are very upset. It's not wrong or bad that they are upset, but it's hard to have any meaningful discussions. I have seen very few cogent responses on the AGAINST side of things since the patch (there have been some). What it comes down to is this:  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abelisk.4527 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @Djinn.9245 said: > > @alceste.8712 said: > > I actually agree. The mount skins are purely cosmetic to boot. You are not in any way weaker. > > It's not about power, its about introducing an expansion that is centered around mounts, purposefully making those mount only have 1 dye channel which is not very visible in most cases, and then only offering 30 out of 36 skins in a gamble box to try to force players who are eager to personalize their new mounts to waste their money on gambling. It is this kind of sleazy practice that people are mad about. It would've been better if we could select a mount, and then get a random skin for that mount Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fallesafe.5932 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 I'll give them "some love" when they put some new, repeatable content in this game. I'm beyond annoyed that I'm still doing the same 16 fractals I've been doing for the last half a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jheryn.8390 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @Khisanth.2948 said: > > @jheryn.8390 said: > > I think it is a general consensus that the mount skin acquisition was awful. I hate it too. However, it has become mass hysteria and has blown into a freaking mob mentality. It is just way beyond the pale. > > > > **Anet has created an amazing game and what did they do that has players wanting to start a March on Washington? A loot box. Unbelievable.** > > > > I'll throw my praise in to Anet. They have made an amazing game that will keep me playing for years. Path of Fire was amazing. It's all amazing. So you had a big mistake in the current mount skin boxes. Who doesn't screw up once in a while? Thanks for the great game Anet people. > > Depends on which Washington you are referring to. DC would be an awful choice. LOL. That was my attempt at wordplay/irony since you probably know that Anet is located in Bellevue, WA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saalle.4623 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 Heey,nothing is worse then EA.Nothing ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Godrik.5841 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @Djinn.9245 said: > > @"Magnus Godrik.5841" said: > > I say let anet keep the rng loot boxes. And just charge $15 per unique mount skin. By $15 I mean use real life monies and remove the gold to gem option on them. Keep the gold to gem option for only rng mount boxes. This will ensure that anet does not go under and you get NO content. I too was angry about it but the more I think about it this is probably one of the best F2P out there, so show your support and throw a few bucks there way. > > $15 per skin, no way. I want skins on a similar price point to gliders or outfits. If Anet thought that a few people on the forums saying they would pay huge amounts for mounts meant that all of us would, that was selective reading on their the thin is its not like there are thou> @Djinn.9245 said: > > @"Magnus Godrik.5841" said: > > I say let anet keep the rng loot boxes. And just charge $15 per unique mount skin. By $15 I mean use real life monies and remove the gold to gem option on them. Keep the gold to gem option for only rng mount boxes. This will ensure that anet does not go under and you get NO content. I too was angry about it but the more I think about it this is probably one of the best F2P out there, so show your support and throw a few bucks there way. > > $15 per skin, no way. I want skins on a similar price point to gliders or outfits. If Anet thought that a few people on the forums saying they would pay huge amounts for mounts meant that all of us would, that was selective reading on their part. A few lol. I hate to tell you more than a f> @Djinn.9245 said: > > @"Magnus Godrik.5841" said: > > I say let anet keep the rng loot boxes. And just charge $15 per unique mount skin. By $15 I mean use real life monies and remove the gold to gem option on them. Keep the gold to gem option for only rng mount boxes. This will ensure that anet does not go under and you get NO content. I too was angry about it but the more I think about it this is probably one of the best F2P out there, so show your support and throw a few bucks there way. > > $15 per skin, no way. I want skins on a similar price point to gliders or outfits. If Anet thought that a few people on the forums saying they would pay huge amounts for mounts meant that all of us would, that was selective reading on their part. Well that's your opinion. I would pay 15 to make my griffin look like a dragon or my skimmer to look like a hover board. And FYI it was way more than a few who purchased these last week. I didn't see gems bounce that high since the elemental sword was an rng drop from a blc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayumi Spender.1082 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 > @saalle.4623 said: > Heey,nothing is worse then EA.Nothing ! Currently, yes. My 1st hate came to Konami in 2008/2009 and stopped doing business with them since. Crapcom made sure to not want my money no more in 2011. EA took until 2012 for me to stop wanting to do business with them. Can't think of any other gaming companies out there I have not bought a single product from other than those 3 except maybe Ubisoft which I haven't bought a game from them since I think Gamecube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael.8562 Posted November 15, 2017 Share Posted November 15, 2017 I can see why people are frustrated over the mount skins but I think the problem is that ANET developed 30 mount skins and wants them to be received equally - to avoid the same 6 or 7 being purchased while the others languish. It's a problem when developing assets for a game. We players clamor for more and more skins and from the point of view of the developer each one is a gamble. Just look at the weapons skins that are developed - not all of them in each set are received equally well by players but the cost of developing each is the same. So by putting them in a random box with a guaranteed unique item (no repeats) each try it seems there was an attempt to make the cost of developing those skins equalize across the whole complement of mount skins - not some dark attempt to bamboozle the players. I'm guessing this is the last time you'll see that many skins released all at once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts