kharmin.7683 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 > @"Zarghoul.5687" said: > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > Do we really need to rehash the entire "gambling" argument again? > > yes Mods will probably close thread and[ point here](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/14758/official-mount-adoption-feedback-thread-merged#latest " point here") like the last dozen threads on the topic. IBTL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarghoul.5687 Posted July 31, 2018 Author Share Posted July 31, 2018 > Perhaps some of the blame should be placed on the players who do not exercise restraint or self-control when gambling. thats like saying if people succumb to gambling then they deserve to be manipulated by companies for all they are worth.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarghoul.5687 Posted July 31, 2018 Author Share Posted July 31, 2018 > Mods will probably close thread and[ point here](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/14758/official-mount-adoption-feedback-thread-merged#latest " point here") like the last dozen threads on the topic. > > IBTL and that will prove my point exactly, tht doing things like this is a bad business practice that exploits its consumers and is not good for PR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarghoul.5687 Posted July 31, 2018 Author Share Posted July 31, 2018 > EDIT: Oh also, gambling never disappeared. Each seasonable item has gambling prizes. and tht still dosnt make the practice any better, there are many factors of gambling in this game, but ones that coerce you into spending real money are scummy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kharmin.7683 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 > @"Zarghoul.5687" said: > > > Mods will probably close thread and[ point here](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/14758/official-mount-adoption-feedback-thread-merged#latest " point here") like the last dozen threads on the topic. > > > > IBTL > > and that will prove my point exactly, tht doing things like this is a bad business practice that exploits its consumers and is not good for PR I respectfully disagree. If they close this thread it will not prove your point. We are all repeating what has already been said before in several other threads. This thread serves no useful purpose for the community that the other threads have not already done. /me shrugs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 Not sure what the issue is. Mount skins cost 1,200 gems. Why does it matter if Arenanet offers people who want the skin a part gamble alternative (with limited outcomes)? Your mistake is you are assuming the base price is 400 gems, it's not. Mount skins cost 1,200 gems. The rebate is for taking a risk which you can completely circumvent. It's also an incentive for people to get more skins. I do kind of agree though. If it was up to me I'd have them offer normal skins for 1,200 gems ONLY just so this issue goes away. The amount of people who get upset that there is a rebate with rng attached to it is just not worth the choice given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrilana.1396 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 > @"Zarghoul.5687" said: > > > Perhaps some of the blame should be placed on the players who do not exercise restraint or self-control when gambling. > > thats like saying if people succumb to gambling then they deserve to be manipulated by companies for all they are worth.... > > No, it’s not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Healix.5819 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 Keep in mind that if they didn't use RNG, they would have trickled them out individually for 1200 gems each and rotated what was available to not flood the store. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarghoul.5687 Posted July 31, 2018 Author Share Posted July 31, 2018 > /me shrugs and until Anet listens, it will still be an issue, doing half a job is still half a job, just list the skins on their own, no rng required Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarghoul.5687 Posted July 31, 2018 Author Share Posted July 31, 2018 > @"Healix.5819" said: > Keep in mind that if they didn't use RNG, they would have trickled them out individually for 1200 gems each and rotated what was available to not flood the store. tbh the price point could be whatever they wanted, would it of been so bad to sell each of them for 400 gems, its reasonable, as it is both a standard price point, as most gliders are 500 gems, and there are almost as many glider skins as there are mount skins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 > @"Zarghoul.5687" said: > > > /me shrugs > and until Anet listens, it will still be an issue, doing half a job is still half a job, just list the skins on their own, no rng required > So you are anti-choice given to players. That's fine, others enjoy choice. Go buy the skins you want for 1,200 gems at their normal price and be done with it, no rng required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deihnyx.6318 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 > @"Zarghoul.5687" said: > > > /me shrugs > and until Anet listens, it will still be an issue, doing half a job is still half a job, just list the skins on their own, no rng required > Again, there are people who enjoy gambling. "Listening" doesn't automatically mean "listening to you". There are many different opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarghoul.5687 Posted July 31, 2018 Author Share Posted July 31, 2018 > So you are anti-choice given to players. That's fine, others enjoy choice. Go buy the skins you want for 1,200 gems at their normal price and be done with it, no rng required. if anti choice is not being over charged for buying 1 item as opposed to three, then so be it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blocki.4931 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 It's the third round of them and nobody complained about the second one anymore either. They are extremely valuable skins and cheap enough for even casual players to convert a bunch of gold for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kharmin.7683 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 > @"Zarghoul.5687" said: > > @"Healix.5819" said: > > Keep in mind that if they didn't use RNG, they would have trickled them out individually for 1200 gems each and rotated what was available to not flood the store. > > tbh the price point could be whatever they wanted, would it of been so bad to sell each of them for 400 gems, its reasonable, as it is both a standard price point, as most gliders are 500 gems, and there are almost as many glider skins as there are mount skins Check out [this post regarding pricing](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/627435/#Comment_627435 "this post regarding pricing"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarghoul.5687 Posted July 31, 2018 Author Share Posted July 31, 2018 > Again, there are people who enjoy gambling. > > "Listening" doesn't automatically mean "listening to you". There are many different opinions. yes people enjoy gambling, but people who struggle with gambling will spend money whether they like it or not, the practice of gambling with lootboxes exploits that tendancy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danikat.8537 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 > @"Zarghoul.5687" said: > > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said: > > Well, it's confusing because you stated: _"... following that adding the ability to buy the skin you want to far exceed the price of a role[sic] is to further exploit that mechanic for further gain to potentially draw people to pay more, *which is gambling*."_ > > yes cause it will make people want to take their chances rather than pay more to get the thing they actually want, why pay 1200 when i can do 3 rolls of rng for tht Because if you only want 1 skin then those 3 roles give you a 1 in 5 chance of getting it. IMO that's pretty bad odds. I'd much rather pay for a 100% guarantee that I'll get the thing I want than a chance of getting it or 3 things I don't want. Of course the more you want the better it is to buy the random ones, especially since you're guaranteed not to get duplicates. If you want 5 then it's the same price to get all 15, if you want more than that then it's actually cheaper to get all of them. That's why I ended up getting all the Istani mounts - there's 8 I really wanted, and I liked or could live with all the rest, so it was much better to get the full pack. But now I have them (and the Branded pack) I'm unlikely to buy any others unless I really love them. But that's also why I appreciate the selection licences - if there's 1 (or 2, 3 or 4) skins I really want in new packs then I can buy just those without having to gamble and maybe end up spending more than 1,200 gems to get them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 > @"Zarghoul.5687" said: > > > So you are anti-choice given to players. That's fine, others enjoy choice. Go buy the skins you want for 1,200 gems at their normal price and be done with it, no rng required. > > if anti choice is not being over charged for buying 1 item as opposed to three, then so be it > and there it is, your actual complaint. You are not opposed to the rng, but rather are unsatisfied with the normal price of mount skins which are valued at 1,200 gems. Next time, make an appropriate thread explaining why mount skins should be cheaper and don't put up a strawman. HINT: the skins would be 1,200 gems no matter if the rng element was added/available or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante.1763 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 > @"Danikat.8537" said: > > @"Zarghoul.5687" said: > > > @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said: > > > Well, it's confusing because you stated: _"... following that adding the ability to buy the skin you want to far exceed the price of a role[sic] is to further exploit that mechanic for further gain to potentially draw people to pay more, *which is gambling*."_ > > > > yes cause it will make people want to take their chances rather than pay more to get the thing they actually want, why pay 1200 when i can do 3 rolls of rng for tht > > Because if you only want 1 skin then those 3 roles give you a 1 in 5 chance of getting it. IMO that's pretty bad odds. I'd much rather pay for a 100% guarantee that I'll get the thing I want than a chance of getting it or 3 things I don't want. > > Of course the more you want the better it is to buy the random ones, especially since you're guaranteed not to get duplicates. If you want 5 then it's the same price to get all 15, if you want more than that then it's actually cheaper to get all of them. That's why I ended up getting all the Istani mounts - there's 8 I really wanted, and I liked or could live with all the rest, so it was much better to get the full pack. But now I have them (and the Branded pack) I'm unlikely to buy any others unless I really love them. > > But that's also why I appreciate the selection licences - if there's 1 (or 2, 3 or 4) skins I really want in new packs then I can buy just those without having to gamble and maybe end up spending more than 1,200 gems to get them. Precisely, for me i want 5 of the skins. To buy them repeatedly it would cost me more than it would to just buy all 15 at once. Didnt do that anyways cause i wanted to buy other things with my gems, so i bought the 5 pack combo and got 2 of the 5 skins i wanted and another i didnt expect to get, and ill probably use at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaklex.6308 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 > @"Zarghoul.5687" said: > while that is true, why should the option to buy the skin you want be more expensive than an rng roll, thats not marketing, thats exploitation Actually that's Marketing 100, so it is marketing and not exploitation at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarghoul.5687 Posted July 31, 2018 Author Share Posted July 31, 2018 that still dosnt change the fact tht an item that can be sold infinitely and is digital, can be priced however you want it to be, you can argue they are priced to follow how long it takes to make, but the man hours it costs will be very quickly gained back, within only a few hours of release, maybe even sooner depending on popularity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 > @"Zarghoul.5687" said: > that still dosnt change the fact tht an item that can be sold infinitely and is digital, can be priced however you want it to be, you can argue they are priced to follow how long it takes to make, but the man hours it costs will be very quickly gained back, within only a few hours of release, maybe even sooner depending on popularity > > You are assuming the cost of the item needs to only cover the development of said item. Tell me again, when was the last subscription fee you paid for this game? Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarghoul.5687 Posted July 31, 2018 Author Share Posted July 31, 2018 i mean its not difficult to sell each skin for the same as a glider, and sell them on their own with no RNG, using this system means they Anet make more money for less work, as i said its an exploit aimed towards consumers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarghoul.5687 Posted July 31, 2018 Author Share Posted July 31, 2018 no, loot boxes are a scummy practice, and my saying a price is just an idea towards what Anet could do if they removed this system all together Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 > @"Zarghoul.5687" said: > i mean its not difficult to sell each skin for the same as a glider, and sell them on their own with no RNG, using this system means they Anet make more money for less work, as i said its an exploit aimed towards consumers > > Do you have data on which of both takes how long to develop? Just as a side note: Blizzard charges 20 Euro for shop mounts on top of their subscription fee. At 1,200 gems Arenanet is charging 15 Euro per mount (with the ability to convert gold to gems) and no subscription fee AND a rng sale element for 5 Euro per try per mount. Even in direct comparison to the biggest competitor GW2 shines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts