ReaverKane.7598 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 I think it's half and half... Many of those re-skins aren't worth 1200, and even the best ones like the Primal and the exalted Griffon are barely changed enough to merit that. A fairer price might have been 800 gems. But we already know that Arena Net are greedy for mount prices, so vote with the wallet. Its at least much less toxic than the previous one, not only is the RNG chance better since it's only 1/12 to get the one you want, but you can beat the odds with the 1200 gem one. So it's kinda fair, i mean they'd have to make the sure choice one expensive enough not to make the 400 gem one meaningless. Will i spend gems on that? Not sure, probably not. I'd rather they kept producing stuff like the Branded pack, which was so far the absolute best mount release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehipone.6812 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 > @"cyndelaq.7148" said: > What I don't understand about this whole thing is that Anet has a product that they know people will buy. They know people will buy it... Why not just charge a reasonable price? Or stop with the gambling bs all together and just release mount packs? Are add an in-game, "menagerie", npc that allows you to choose the mount you want then increase the price of the licenses to 800 gems? > Reasonable price is set by market forces and the spectrum of demand at the various price points balanced by the desire by the product developer to maximize revenue vs. invested development resources. Just because the price is "not reasonable" to you doesn't mean that it is "not reasonable" to the broader market. >They'll make money regardless of how they do it so why not be reasonable? Because who in their right mind, that's struggling to make ends meet, is going to drop $100/$150 on this?> Would you spend time mowing someone's lawn for $1 even though you would be "making money regardless"? No, you would seek the most that the person is willing to pay. Anyone who is struggling to make ends meet should not be spending any money on video game skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyFallsInThunder.8257 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 Out of the frying pan and into the fire. We now have the option to buy the skins we want, but at a **still**-ridiculous-even-though-not-as-ridiculous-as-before price. Nty, ANet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerioth.7062 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 Well I certainly bought the skins and am happy - thanks Anet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 > @"gaborkaldy.3210" said: > I have bought 25 skins with in-game gold to get the 4-5 skin i was needed. I could have bought them with only 15 skin worth of gold if they release this sooner. > > Again they have kittened up those who have already bought the skins with RNG, and satisfied those who refused initially to buy loot boxes. > Double money. > > Good job ANET, you tricked us again and gained profit after all. :angry: 1200 gem choice license applies to new set only. Old adoption license is still pure rng. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaborkaldy.3210 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 > @"Cerioth.7062" said: > > @"gaborkaldy.3210" said: > > I have bought 25 skins with in-game gold to get the 4-5 skin i was needed. I could have bought them with only 15 skin worth of gold if they release this sooner. > > > > Again they have kittened up those who have already bought the skins with RNG, and satisfied those who refused initially to buy loot boxes. > > Double money. > > > > Good job ANET, you tricked us again and gained profit after all. :angry: > > Eh? This change didnt concern the original mount licenses. You are right. Edited my post. Made early assumptions. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaborkaldy.3210 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > @"gaborkaldy.3210" said: > > I have bought 25 skins with in-game gold to get the 4-5 skin i was needed. I could have bought them with only 15 skin worth of gold if they release this sooner. > > > > Again they have kittened up those who have already bought the skins with RNG, and satisfied those who refused initially to buy loot boxes. > > Double money. > > > > Good job ANET, you tricked us again and gained profit after all. :angry: > > 1200 gem choice license applies to new set only. Old adoption license is still pure rng. You are right. Edited my post. Made early assumptions. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > @"Traveller.7496" said: > > Please add the same system with the original skin pack. There are many great skins I would buy right away, but I haven't because I'm against RNG in these kind of purchases. I want to know what I buy, and the new set is a step in the right direction. > > I think it's not possible as it would cause massive refund request. I myself would want to refund most of the skins from that pack. People may request refunds, but they would not deserve them and should not get them. ANet puts things on sale all the time, should everyone who ever paid full price for a character slot get a refund when they lower it by 30%? Should ever player that bought the core game at launch get a refund when they made that content Free to Play? Of course not. Players bought the mount licenses under the original system, and they got what they paid for, the mount skins they got, for as long as they had them. That doesn't mean that ANet should be permanently held hostage to that original arrangement if they can provide a better value to their customers. > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > To be honest it wouldn't matter what price they put on the value of a skin, someone somewhere will be salty about it cos they want everything free or as near to it as possible.. Some? Maybe, but not enough to matter. We aren't talking about those people here. This is about finding the right price balance for *everyone else,* the people who *are* willing to spend a reasonable amount on these skins, but do not feel that 1200 is the right price for most of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 > @"thehipone.6812" said: > Would you spend time mowing someone's lawn for $1 even though you would be "making money regardless"? No, you would seek the most that the person is willing to pay. But the thing is, if you only have to worry about that one lawn, then sure, get what you can get for that one lawn, but if you can get the opportunity to mow three lawns if you charge $10, or eight lawns if you only charge $5 (and somehow no matter how many lawns you mow it takes the exact same total amount of time and effort because this is an inefficient analogy), then you're better off overall by charging $5 each, since you'd be making $10 more overall. Charging the absolute most you can get out of one customer is not always the best way to get the most possible total. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artemis.6781 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"thehipone.6812" said: > > Would you spend time mowing someone's lawn for $1 even though you would be "making money regardless"? No, you would seek the most that the person is willing to pay. > > But the thing is, if you only have to worry about that one lawn, then sure, get what you can get for that one lawn, but if you can get the opportunity to mow three lawns if you charge $10, or eight lawns if you only charge $5 (and somehow no matter how many lawns you mow it takes the exact same total amount of time and effort because this is an inefficient analogy), then you're better off overall by charging $5 each, since you'd be making $10 more overall. Charging the absolute most you can get out of one customer is not always the best way to get the most possible total. > > But if my neighbor throws $100 at me to mow the lawn, I'm taking it! Edited because of autocorrect! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > @"Traveller.7496" said: > > > Please add the same system with the original skin pack. There are many great skins I would buy right away, but I haven't because I'm against RNG in these kind of purchases. I want to know what I buy, and the new set is a step in the right direction. > > > > I think it's not possible as it would cause massive refund request. I myself would want to refund most of the skins from that pack. > > People may request refunds, but they would not deserve them and should not get them. ANet puts things on sale all the time, should everyone who ever paid full price for a character slot get a refund when they lower it by 30%? Should ever player that bought the core game at launch get a refund when they made that content Free to Play? Of course not. Players bought the mount licenses under the original system, and they got what they paid for, the mount skins they got, for as long as they had them. That doesn't mean that ANet should be permanently held hostage to that original arrangement if they can provide a better value to their customers. > > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > To be honest it wouldn't matter what price they put on the value of a skin, someone somewhere will be salty about it cos they want everything free or as near to it as possible.. > > Some? Maybe, but not enough to matter. We aren't talking about those people here. This is about finding the right price balance for *everyone else,* the people who *are* willing to spend a reasonable amount on these skins, but do not feel that 1200 is the right price for most of them. > > How do you know that the 1200 price for a choice skin is not reasonable.. maybe not to you but to others it might be.... the true data in this lies with ANET. I would hazard a guess the 2000gems mounts have not been received to well and market forces have pushed to find a better price where demand is higher. Perhaps 1200 isn't it but they could of just slapped it at 2000gems like the specific choice skin we have had lately. Personally I think this price is much more likely to see demand, but that said If they drop it much lower they would have to consider dropping the price of the random choice option as well otherwise it kinda makes it a bit of a damp squib to have it, which is not good for the skins market or players either. If we are not careful we will just be left with a 1 skin 1 price market only regardless of the skin and that is not good either. As I said some players will never be happy no matter what ANET push out so best you can do is decide on a personal level what is the best value for yourself and whether you want to buy or not, leave the "everyone else" for them to decide. If it is still not working out for ANET from a profit perspective I am sure they will have already done the maths and worked out their margins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: >How do you know that the 1200 price for a choice skin is not reasonable.. maybe not to you but to others it might be.... the true data in this lies with ANET. If their data says that 1200 is fine, and they believe it, then they won't listen to me, and you don't have to be afraid that they will. I'm only providing my feedback as to why I probably won't be buying any of these skins, or if I do why I'm buying less than I otherwise might. They are leaving my money on the table, and if they believe that's in their overall best interests, then so be it, but if they are wondering how they can get more people to spend more money, this might help. >I would hazard a guess the 2000gems mounts have not been received to well and market forces have pushed to find a better price where demand is higher. Perhaps 1200 isn't it but they could of just slapped it at 2000gems like the specific choice skin we have had lately. I doubt that would have worked. The 2000 gems ones worked as highly detailed, extra fancy "premium" versions of skins. I doubt they could move the "Striped Jarin" skins at 2000 gems. I doubt they'll move a single one at 1200 either, the only people who will own one are people who roll the gacha. And that's my point, I think 1200 is probably acceptable for a few of these skins, it's more than I'd *like* to pay, but not completely out of line. But it is out of line for *most* of them, and they should allow players to pick and choose which ones they want. In the current system it costs 1800 gems for 5 licenses, or 5400 gems to clear out the shop completely. That would be the cost of 4.5 skins at 1200 gems. If instead you bought the bundle to get them all, they would only average at 360 gems in total. So why not instead of having them all be at 1200 gems direct, make a few 1200, a few 800, a bunch at 400, and a few more at 200-300? The total price would still end up being the same or more as buying the 3x5 bundles and clearing out the shop, but it would allow consumers to more reasonably pick and choose the ones they want, and pay a reasonable price for each. >Personally I think this price is much more likely to see demand, but that said If they drop it much lower they would have to consider dropping the price of the random choice option as well otherwise it kinda makes it a bit of a damp squib to have it, which is not good for the skins market or players either. I liked the system Marvel Heroes used to have. They had a system in which characters were in tiers. The more ppopular or complicated ones would be more expensive than the simpler or less popular ones, generally speaking. Some were 600 gems, some 400 gems, some 200 gems. What was the RNG box? 175 Gems. It was always slightly cheaper to go random, but some of the characters were barely more than that, and most others were around double that price, not triple. Only a handful were in the 600 range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyper Cutter.9376 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 Standalone Glider skins cost 400-500 gems for a guaranteed glider of your choice (and even the glider/backpack bundles only cost 700 gems), there is _literally_ no reason mount skins should work any differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majirah.5089 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 > @"Hyper Cutter.9376" said: > Standalone Glider skins cost 400-500 gems for a guaranteed glider of your choice (and even the glider/backpack bundles only cost 700 gems), there is _literally_ no reason mount skins should work any differently. This is wrong. If mount skins are in higher demand or cost more to produce, then Anet absolutely should charge more for them. Should a ball cap cost the same as a cowboy hat because they both go on your head? No. They are different products with different costs and demand. Therefore they should be priced different. Mount skins are not glider skins and should not be expected to be priced the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"thehipone.6812" said: > > Would you spend time mowing someone's lawn for $1 even though you would be "making money regardless"? No, you would seek the most that the person is willing to pay. > > But the thing is, if you only have to worry about that one lawn, then sure, get what you can get for that one lawn, but if you can get the opportunity to mow three lawns if you charge $10, or eight lawns if you only charge $5 (and somehow no matter how many lawns you mow it takes the exact same total amount of time and effort because this is an inefficient analogy), then you're better off overall by charging $5 each, since you'd be making $10 more overall. Charging the absolute most you can get out of one customer is not always the best way to get the most possible total. > > Ridiculous. You charge for as much as they are willing to pay to a point. If you charge $5, how are you even sure that pays for the gas used? Or the oil and upkeep? Or the difficulty of mowing? Some lawns are more time consuming than others. You either charge by the hour, the lawn size and or the labor (edging, level of care) and you charge a set rate for that. If you want to lower the price for an individual, that's on you... But if someone finds out you're cutting other people deals, you might have trouble on your hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eloc Freidon.5692 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 The difference here with that lawn analogy is that Anet doesn't have to do any work beyond the first lawn. Someone pushes a button (the player) and its pure profit beyond the initial job. If only 20,000 players bought just one direct buy 1200gem model item, that's $300k. Its always been proven that lowering the price increases the buyer numbers exponentially making the profits even more ridiculous. Lowering the price to 800gems max is fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Hide.6345 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 The 1200 price doesn't bug me that much because at least we have the option now to pick which mount I want which is what I wanted from the beginning with the first rng mount box. There is only one mount skin I want from this pack which is the Griffon's Exalted Sky Sentry, so I don't mind paying 1200 just for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majirah.5089 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 > @"Eloc Freidon.5692" said: > The difference here with that lawn analogy is that Anet doesn't have to do any work beyond the first lawn. Someone pushes a button (the player) and its pure profit beyond the initial job. If only 20,000 players bought just one direct buy 1200gem model item, that's $300k. Its always been proven that lowering the price increases the buyer numbers exponentially making the profits even more ridiculous. > > Lowering the price to 800gems max is fair. This still isn’t correct. Even with only the initial upfront development cost it is still important for them to find the best price point to earn the income. And it is more complicated than the “charge low prices everyone buys” garbage people keep on spouting. That isn’t the way it works. And if you think they don’t do any work past initial development you are highly mistaken. Do you think they develop a skin and then just stand around all day not getting paid, using utilities, paying rent, or doing anything? If they charged a penny for a mount skin then perhaps everyone who plays the game would buy it, but that doesn’t mean it is the most profitable price point. We don’t have the data to be able to come even close to an accurate forecast of sales at each price point. Anet does and as a business I am sure they reviewed their data when setting the price. Additionally it isn’t pure profit past the cost of developing that item. The item might have a gross margin, but gross margin does not equal net income. Their goal isn’t just to recover the cost of developing the mount skin. Even if each gemstore item has a gross profit it would not be enough. It is to cover all of the overhead and G&A costs associated not only with that one skin, but also help cover all other development. Since gem store is their main income each item has to contribute earnings to cover the costs of running the business, current and future development, and then some to earn a true profit (net income). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"thehipone.6812" said: > > Would you spend time mowing someone's lawn for $1 even though you would be "making money regardless"? No, you would seek the most that the person is willing to pay. > > But the thing is, if you only have to worry about that one lawn, then sure, get what you can get for that one lawn, but if you can get the opportunity to mow three lawns if you charge $10, or eight lawns if you only charge $5 (and somehow no matter how many lawns you mow it takes the exact same total amount of time and effort because this is an inefficient analogy), then you're better off overall by charging $5 each, since you'd be making $10 more overall. Charging the absolute most you can get out of one customer is not always the best way to get the most possible total. > > This is where analogies come apart. I wouldnt want to do 133% more work (8 jobs vs 3) for only 33% more income. That extra time could be much more effectively used, as demonstrated by the example establishing that a job's increment of time is worth $10. Time is money and the 8 lawns example is a loss compared to the 3 lawns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azure The Heartless.3261 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 Just want to mention that I agree with this version of mount delivery. I ended up picking up the majority of them anyway, but it's certainly thoughtful to allow mount selection in addition to randomization. This batch was fine. Keep the batch releases that small, and keep the price as it is, and if that works out for Anet it works out for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 > @"Leo G.4501" said: >You charge for as much as they are willing to pay to a point. If you charge $5, how are you even sure that pays for the gas used? Or the oil and upkeep? Or the difficulty of mowing? Some lawns are more time consuming than others. You either charge by the hour, the lawn size and or the labor (edging, level of care) and you charge a set rate for that. If you want to lower the price for an individual, that's on you... But if someone finds out you're cutting other people deals, you might have trouble on your hands. I warned you about not breaking the analogy, and now look where we're at. See, we aren't actually talking about lawnmowers, we're using them as an *analogy* for mount skins in the game GW2. In the game, each skin does not cost anything, they design it once, and then that is their fixed cost whether one person buys it or a million people buy it. So no, there is not some "minimal expense" they need to cover for each unit sold. Instead, they only have ONE fixed cost, in this case let's say it's the cost of buying the lawnmower in the first place, and they want to recover and surpass that cost by any means available. So again, back to my analogy, are they best served by mowing three lawns at $10 a piece, or by mowing eight lawns at $5 a piece? Why would you argue they're better off with three? > @"Majirah.5089" said: > Do you think they develop a skin and then just stand around all day not getting paid, using utilities, paying rent, or doing anything? Presumably they move on to the next project, but their work on that specific product is done. >If they charged a penny for a mount skin then perhaps everyone who plays the game would buy it, but that doesn’t mean it is the most profitable price point. Of course not, but nobody is asking for that. Even the most "greedy" pricing requests seem to be plenty high enough for them to make a significant profit. The price points I quoted would make them as much or more than the current model would from a customer who bought out the store using the sale pricing. They would only stand to lose money overall if 1. Nobody new would be buying that wouldn't already be buying at the current rates AND 2. people were choosing to only buy the cheapest available skins, and ignoring the more expensive ones. There are numerous other, more likely combinations of factors that would result in higher overall profits. > @"Ashen.2907" said: >This is where analogies come apart. >I wouldnt want to do 133% more work (8 jobs vs 3) for only 33% more income. That extra time could be much more effectively used, as demonstrated by the example establishing that a job's increment of time is worth $10. You too? Again, there is NO point to "breaking an analogy." That proves nothing about the correctness of the actual point being made, it only proves that the analogy isn't 1:1 to the original scenario, which, of course it wouldn't be, because then it would just *be* the original scenario. So *obviously,* as I noted myself, there are differences between mowing a lawn and selling a skin, that's beside the point. If we're going to be sticking to the *relevant* portions of the analogy, we need to recognize that they would NOT be doing more work to service more customers, because that's not how any of this works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaklex.6308 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 > @"crosknight.3041" said: > ugh not this garbage RNG skin crud again. cant wait until actual regulation on lootboxes happen in the US now > while i do appreciate that they have given us an option to bypass the RNG.... 1200 gems is way to much. (RNG pricing should be closer to BLkeys, 125gems-200gems; then a more acceptable price for choose would be ~600) > > overall the way mount skins have been implemented since PoF release have been horrid imo, compared to glider skins (which is another expansion exclusive way of mobility) > maybe just the game industry continuously shoving lootboxes into games have made me very cynical and distrustworty towards those who use that microtransaction method. my money and gold are staying with me. > First, I can almost guarantee that loot boxes won't be regulated in the U.S., not unless Congress wants to rewrite the definition of gambling, which is already in the Federal Register and if you bother to read it, loot boxes do not come close to reaching it for the very fact that you are guaranteed to win something, by definition in the U.S in order for it to be considered gambling there has to be a chance that you get nothing and the house(business) gets everything aka you can lose without getting any prize at all...that doesn't happen with loot boxes. To those that complain about the price...you are proving that you have no grasp of how our economy works, just like Trump, it is 100% consumer based, if people don't spend money the economy will not grow, it has zero to do with companies, expanding, hiring more people , etc., etc.,...it's all based on consumerism, as prices of consumer products rise and people stop spending less the economy shrinks, we'll see that effect shortly with implementation of tariffs on consumer goods. Stop being a bunch of skin flints and spend your discretionary income, that is what it's for to spend...not hoard. For those that are trying to use an analogy to discuss this you're all doing it wrong, and I'll show you a much simpler way to make your point, and you'll find that the higher price is the correct response. The proper way to do this is to designate 3 items, A, B and C; Item A costs 10 widgets, Item B costs 15 Widgets and Item C costs 20 widgets, based on those prices you have 50 people that will buy Item A which equals 500 widgets in sales; Item B will sell to 40 people which totals 600 widgets in sales, and increase of 100 widgets at 10 less sales; then you come to Item C at 20 widgets per, you get 30 people that will buy item C for a total of 600 widgets in income...therefore the happy medium is Item B at 15 widgets per, you have 10 people that won't buy it, but you've maximized your income...that's how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > >You charge for as much as they are willing to pay to a point. If you charge $5, how are you even sure that pays for the gas used? Or the oil and upkeep? Or the difficulty of mowing? Some lawns are more time consuming than others. You either charge by the hour, the lawn size and or the labor (edging, level of care) and you charge a set rate for that. If you want to lower the price for an individual, that's on you... But if someone finds out you're cutting other people deals, you might have trouble on your hands. > > I warned you about not breaking the analogy, and now look where we're at. See, we aren't actually talking about lawnmowers, we're using them as an *analogy* for mount skins in the game GW2. In the game, each skin does not cost anything, they design it once, and then that is their fixed cost whether one person buys it or a million people buy it. So no, there is not some "minimal expense" they need to cover for each unit sold. Instead, they only have ONE fixed cost, in this case let's say it's the cost of buying the lawnmower in the first place, and they want to recover and surpass that cost by any means available. So again, back to my analogy, are they best served by mowing three lawns at $10 a piece, or by mowing eight lawns at $5 a piece? Why would you argue they're better off with three? Well I'm not talking about analogies or comparing it to anything, just the concept of lawn mowing and, as a business, taking more lawns for cheaper is completely counter to the business model. The business model is level of service, i.e. you do a well enough job for the agreed upon price and you get repeat business a few weeks later. Price also plays a part but not in a fashion I would even bother comparing to GW2. > In the game, each skin does not cost anything, they design it once, and then that is their fixed cost whether one person buys it or a million people buy it. I feel this fact is rather irrelevent if you don't acknowledge that, once you purchase the skin, that product on the shelf is completely useless to you, i.e. an account isn't going to buy that skin designed once more than once... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 > @"Zaklex.6308" said: >First, I can almost guarantee that loot boxes won't be regulated in the U.S., not unless Congress wants to rewrite the definition of gambling, which is already in the Federal Register and if you bother to read it, loot boxes do not come close to reaching it for the very fact that you are guaranteed to win something, by definition in the U.S in order for it to be considered gambling there has to be a chance that you get nothing and the house(business) gets everything aka you can lose without getting any prize at all...that doesn't happen with loot boxes. That's not true, there is no "chance of receiving nothing" rule in the legal code. The basis for whether or not something is gambling is about whether you have a chance fo *winning* something. If it worked the way you wish it did, then anyone who wanted to have a full stakes casino could open one anywhere they want without any sort of license, all they'd need to do is make sure that you always get a prize on any gamble. Bet $10 on a hand of blackjack. Beat the dealer? Great, you get $20! Dealer beats you? Equally as great, you get a stick of gum! You win no matter what, it's not gambling! I don't know where this whole "it's not gambling as long as you get *something* myth even got started, but it certainly makes the rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ze Dos Cavalos.6132 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 Thank you anet for listening to the players. I think this system is great and it should please everyone, gamblers and people that just want that one skin. Lots of people complaining here but this time they are not being reasonable. Keep up the good work 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