Mount skin sets for people who don't like RNG

[Tekoneiric.6817]

Why not just put mount skins that are alike in sets for folks who don't like RNG instead of charging high amounts for a single skin? While I haven't bought any gems with real money since the mount RNG mess started I have converted gold over to gems to get a few sets. I would be way more open to buying gem cards and even the next expansion if they would just put them in sets to purchase for 1600 gems (no beetle) or 2000 gems (w/beetle). Cosmic mount set, Arctic, fire, etc. They could rotate those sets out once a week in a scheduled rotation so players know when they are coming up. They could still keep the RNG single mount licenses for people who like them. While there are some mount skins I like in the RNG, I'm not going buy RNG licenses or spend 1200 or 2000 gems on a single selected mount skin.

[Trise.2865]

"Dear ArenaNet:

You're charging more than I want to pay for a thing that I want. Plz nerf."

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Tekoneiric.6817" said:

> I'm not going buy RNG licenses or spend 1200 or 2000 gems on a single selected mount skin.

 

Voting with your wallet (RL or in game) is the appropriate response.

 

However, I will point out that every new MountFit released except for those in the first License pack is already available _without_ RNG.

* The price for premium MountFits is 2000 gems, discounted to 1600 gems on rare occasions.

* The price for a set of five themed-MountFits is 2000 gems, i.e. 400 each, often discounted on introduction to 1600.

* The price for standard MountFits is 1200 gems.

* If you'd like to roll the dice, you might get the skins you want for 400 each (but probability says: nope, not likely).

* You can get all 15 Racers for the cost of 4.3 select licenses (340 each) and all 15 Istani skins for the cost of 4.5 select licenses (360 each).

 

Thus your concern isn't with RNG at all. You simply don't like the prices. (Which is, of course, fine. There might be a great business reason why ANet charges an amount they know is too steep for many, but that doesn't mean anyone has to like it.)

[calb.3128]

> @"Tekoneiric.6817" said:

> Why not just put mount skins that are alike in sets for folks who don't like RNG instead of charging high amounts for a single skin? While I haven't bought any gems with real money since the mount RNG mess started I have converted gold over to gems to get a few sets. I would be way more open to buying gem cards and even the next expansion if they would just put them in sets to purchase for 1600 gems (no beetle) or 2000 gems (w/beetle). Cosmic mount set, Arctic, fire, etc. They could rotate those sets out once a week in a scheduled rotation so players know when they are coming up.**** They could still keep the RNG single mount licenses for people who like them. ****While there are some mount skins I like in the RNG, I'm not going buy RNG licenses or spend 1200 or 2000 gems on a single selected mount skin.

How benevolent of you. There are good reasons this isn't the case, and they're principally financial. Skin sets do happen, e.g. the Exo-Suit Mounts Pack, or Spooky Mounts Pack. I appreciate they might not be exactly the skins you want, but you can't win all of the time, right?

[Danikat.8537]

There are mount sets for people who don't want to RNG, they're just not the same as the ones which are in the RNG packs. There's been spooky, wintersday, branded, exosuit and awakened mount packs each sold for 1,600 or 2,000 gems (320 or 400 gems per skin) and I'm sure there will be more in future.

 

I would like them to do the same with some of the reoccurring themes that appear within the RNG sets, like space, ice or fire mounts. The problem with doing it now is some people who would buy them already have some of those skins. I'd love a matching set of space mounts, but I already have the skimmer and I'll probably buy the raptor too...so would I have to buy those again if they released a set? Or maybe they could use the same tech as the Living World season packs where the price adjusts automatically so you only pay for what you don't already have. (Which has also been suggested as a solution for adding beetles to the existing 5-packs.)

[Scar.1793]

Wasn’t the backlash from that kind of crap not enough? I thought they learned the lesson. Apparently not.

 

Hopefully all of Europe will do as Belgium and Netherlands who banned that greedy and shady practise that are lootboxes. And don’t tell me licenses are not, even though it appears more fair you still pay for something you don’t know and with random chances to get what you want.

[starlinvf.1358]

> @"Scar.1793" said:

> Wasn’t the backlash from that kind of crap not enough? I thought they learned the lesson. Apparently not.

>

> Hopefully all of Europe will do as Belgium and Netherlands who banned that greedy and shady practise that are lootboxes. And don’t tell me licenses are not, even though it appears more fair you still pay for something you don’t know and with random chances to get what you want.

 

What they learned from last time is that people will STILL spend money on the RNG system, despite the controversy. Its depressing, but the math backs up the notion that MountGate wasn't enough to stop a lot of people from buying a full license pack. The same goes for black lion chest exclusives, like the Wild magic back/glider.

 

The fact that this round of skins follows the same model confirms one of my concerns...... the consumer base at large doesn't care enough. I know a lot of people who just bought all the RNG mount skins to collect them, or simply found it more convenient to unlock the full set then to try and spend the minimum possible to get only what they want.

[Biff.5312]

But they do. They release sets for 1600 gems every now and then, which come with similarly themed skins for all available pets.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Scar.1793" said:

> Wasn’t the backlash from that kind of crap not enough? I thought they learned the lesson. Apparently not.

>

> Hopefully all of Europe will do as Belgium and Netherlands who banned that greedy and shady practise that are lootboxes. And don’t tell me licenses are not, even though it appears more fair you still pay for something you don’t know and with random chances to get what you want.

 

Except this isn't a "lootbox" situation in any meaningful sense.

* You can pay a fixed amount for the skin you want.

* OR You can buy a bundle of all skins for a discount per skin.

* OR you can roll for a chance.

 

Just because it's "random" doesn't make it a lootbox, even under the definition that some countries in the EU are considering.

[Turkeyspit.3965]

Let's also acknowledge that we are talking about skins here, not mounts. If you could only get the Springer by paying money/gems with a hope of being lucky, then the outrage would be justified - this is not the case. Every player can earn the mounts they want in game, the skins are nothing more than outfits for your mounts.

[Ayakaru.6583]

You can but specific mounts for 1200 gems.

This gambling method is a way to drop the costs from the usual 1600-2000 price

[zealex.9410]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Tekoneiric.6817" said:

> > I'm not going buy RNG licenses or spend 1200 or 2000 gems on a single selected mount skin.

>

> Voting with your wallet (RL or in game) is the appropriate response.

>

> However, I will point out that every new MountFit released except for those in the first License pack is already available _without_ RNG.

> * The price for premium MountFits is 2000 gems, discounted to 1600 gems on rare occasions.

> * The price for a set of five themed-MountFits is 2000 gems, i.e. 400 each, often discounted on introduction to 1600.

> * The price for standard MountFits is 1200 gems.

> * If you'd like to roll the dice, you might get the skins you want for 400 each (but probability says: nope, not likely).

> * You can get all 15 Racers for the cost of 4.3 select licenses (340 each) and all 15 Istani skins for the cost of 4.5 select licenses (360 each).

>

> Thus your concern isn't with RNG at all. You simply don't like the prices. (Which is, of course, fine. There might be a great business reason why ANet charges an amount they know is too steep for many, but that doesn't mean anyone has to like it.)

 

I mean a market has usally multiple items in different price points. Idk how expensive they want to sell some of their products, if ppl want to and can afford to buy said products they will.

 

They are losing out on money tho by not having options for the low to mid end spenders.

 

It will also force high end products to be of a better quality to make them more fitting of teir price.

[Einlanzer.1627]

Considering you can't get duplicates, I think the random skins and the mount bundle skins are pretty reasonably priced and probably sell a lot. Buying a specific skin for 3x or buying a "premium" skin for 2000 gems is very much overpriced, and I can't imagine they sell that many of them. I consider them overpriced for the following reasons:

 

a.) there are now 6 different mounts, and umpteen different buyable skins for each mount. Charging a premium for a mount skin only really works if it's the minority of skins available and you're able to use that mount pretty exclusively if you want.

 

b.) no additional skins are available through in-game rewards. Charging a premium for a mount skin really only works if they are a supplemental rather than a primary way of obtaining new skins.

 

c.) even though the game's business model is based on microtransactions, the BLS already monetizes so much crap that it's getting a little ridiculous even if you dismiss mount skins. The more different things they try to monetize, the more it's likely to undermine their gem sales as people do not have unlimited money to spend on a game and will eventually get frustrated enough to stop buying anything.

 

Now, I'm familiar with O'Brien's explanation for the pricing, but, honestly, I just don't really buy it. I think to some extent they are self-sabotaging by charging more than they should.

 

 

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> They are losing out on money tho by not having options for the low to mid end spenders.

If they were losing money, they wouldn't do this. They have said specifically that they will make more money from selling a smaller amount of premium items at premium cost than they can make from a larger amount of lower-cost ones, despite the increased number of potential buyers. (Partly it's because low/mid spenders buy below their potential, while high spenders purchase closer to their potential total consumption.)

 

Regardless, that's an argument separate from the OP's contention as to whether the game offers MountFits without RNG (spoiler alert: it already does).

[Brother.1504]

> @"Scar.1793" said:

> Wasn’t the backlash from that kind of crap not enough? I thought they learned the lesson. Apparently not.

>

> Hopefully all of Europe will do as Belgium and Netherlands who banned that greedy and shady practise that are lootboxes. And don’t tell me licenses are not, even though it appears more fair you still pay for something you don’t know and with random chances to get what you want.

 

The mount licences are more like buying a pack of trading cards, baseball, magic the gathering, Pokémon, w/e. You buy the set knowing you could get the card you want or a few that you personally don’t value as much. Your loot box argument may apply to black lion chests but not to the mount licenses. Don’t conflate the two.

 

[SmirkDog.3160]

"Vote with your wallet" does absolutely nothing unless you're spending your money. There's always those people that snatch up the new gem store items as soon as they're available and parade them through LA. Those people tell ANet that selling stuff at high prices and randomizing what you get when you make your purchase is financially beneficial to them.

 

Meanwhile, me deciding I'm not going to buy anything from the gem store anymore does _nothing_ to change the state of things. "Vote with your wallet" is a farce, and used to trick people into thinking they're getting something done by doing nothing and not saying anything, when it's just used to do exactly that; get us to do nothing and say nothing.

[Ashantara.8731]

> @"Tekoneiric.6817" said:

> Why not just put mount skins that are alike in sets for folks who don't like RNG instead of charging high amounts for a single skin?

 

First of all, there are mount skins that don't fit into any set, as they are rather unique ([see current license](http://dulfy.net/2018/07/24/gw2-desert-racer-mount-adoption-license-preview/ "see current license")).

 

And second, I have to ask, **who _likes_ RNG?** Just because some people can't resist, doesn't mean they "like" it. I could do without, but the current price for single skins is ridiculous, which more or less seduces those people to gamble for certain skins.

[Diak Atoli.2085]

> @"SmirkDog.3160" said:

> "Vote with your wallet" does absolutely nothing unless you're spending your money. There's always those people that snatch up the new gem store items as soon as they're available and parade them through LA. Those people tell ANet that selling stuff at high prices and randomizing what you get when you make your purchase is financially beneficial to them.

>

> Meanwhile, me deciding I'm not going to buy anything from the gem store anymore does _nothing_ to change the state of things. "Vote with your wallet" is a farce, and used to trick people into thinking they're getting something done by doing nothing and not saying anything, when it's just used to do exactly that; get us to do nothing and say nothing.

 

It seems, then, that 'vote with your wallet' is working as intended. Just because you don't care for the new (item, skin, convenience, etc) doesn't mean those who do are wrong.

[Tekoneiric.6817]

> @"Biff.5312" said:

> But they do. They release sets for 1600 gems every now and then, which come with similarly themed skins for all available pets.

 

I know about the existing sets however they have good skins locked up in that RNG license. The only way to get them is either RNG which I do not like at all or pay 3x the amount to be able to choose the skin you want.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Tekoneiric.6817" said:

> > @"Biff.5312" said:

> > But they do. They release sets for 1600 gems every now and then, which come with similarly themed skins for all available pets.

>

> I know about the existing sets however they have good skins locked up in that RNG license. The only way to get them is either RNG which I do not like at all or pay 3x the amount to be able to choose the skin you want.

 

The only skins locked are the original ones. And ANet said that they didn't want to change the mechanic out of fairness for those who have already acquired skins that way. And, as it turns out, they aren't available right now through any means.

 

What other system would you propose that is both close to the current system and remains fair to current owners of the original set's skins?

[Gehenna.3625]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Scar.1793" said:

> > Wasn’t the backlash from that kind of crap not enough? I thought they learned the lesson. Apparently not.

> >

> > Hopefully all of Europe will do as Belgium and Netherlands who banned that greedy and shady practise that are lootboxes. And don’t tell me licenses are not, even though it appears more fair you still pay for something you don’t know and with random chances to get what you want.

>

> Except this isn't a "lootbox" situation in any meaningful sense.

> * You can pay a fixed amount for the skin you want.

> * OR You can buy a bundle of all skins for a discount per skin.

> * OR you can roll for a chance.

>

> Just because it's "random" doesn't make it a lootbox, even under the definition that some countries in the EU are considering.

 

I remember reading that you do not get doubles, so when you buy the next pack you will get different skins until you have them all. Also there are no "rare" skins within a set to keep you buying until you are lucky, so I would agree that with everything else you mentioned these are not lootboxes as such. If anything could be looked at as lootboxes in this game it'd be the black lion chests.

 

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"SmirkDog.3160" said:

> "Vote with your wallet" does absolutely nothing unless you're spending your money. There's always those people that snatch up the new gem store items as soon as they're available and parade them through LA. Those people tell ANet that selling stuff at high prices and randomizing what you get when you make your purchase is financially beneficial to them.

>

> Meanwhile, me deciding I'm not going to buy anything from the gem store anymore does _nothing_ to change the state of things. "Vote with your wallet" is a farce, and used to trick people into thinking they're getting something done by doing nothing and not saying anything, when it's just used to do exactly that; get us to do nothing and say nothing.

 

"Voting" by not buying is the only power consumers have. However, telling the company why is necessary for there to be any _possible_ impact. Anyone who is telling people not to say anything is doing consumers a disservice.

[Ashen.2907]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > @"Tekoneiric.6817" said:

> > > I'm not going buy RNG licenses or spend 1200 or 2000 gems on a single selected mount skin.

> >

> > Voting with your wallet (RL or in game) is the appropriate response.

> >

> > However, I will point out that every new MountFit released except for those in the first License pack is already available _without_ RNG.

> > * The price for premium MountFits is 2000 gems, discounted to 1600 gems on rare occasions.

> > * The price for a set of five themed-MountFits is 2000 gems, i.e. 400 each, often discounted on introduction to 1600.

> > * The price for standard MountFits is 1200 gems.

> > * If you'd like to roll the dice, you might get the skins you want for 400 each (but probability says: nope, not likely).

> > * You can get all 15 Racers for the cost of 4.3 select licenses (340 each) and all 15 Istani skins for the cost of 4.5 select licenses (360 each).

> >

> > Thus your concern isn't with RNG at all. You simply don't like the prices. (Which is, of course, fine. There might be a great business reason why ANet charges an amount they know is too steep for many, but that doesn't mean anyone has to like it.)

>

> I mean a market has usally multiple items in different price points. Idk how expensive they want to sell some of their products, if ppl want to and can afford to buy said products they will.

>

> They are losing out on money tho by not having options for the low to mid end spenders.

>

> It will also force high end products to be of a better quality to make them more fitting of teir price.

 

Ccord> @"SmirkDog.3160" said:

> "Vote with your wallet" does absolutely nothing unless you're spending your money. There's always those people that snatch up the new gem store items as soon as they're available and parade them through LA. Those people tell ANet that selling stuff at high prices and randomizing what you get when you make your purchase is financially beneficial to them.

>

> Meanwhile, me deciding I'm not going to buy anything from the gem store anymore does _nothing_ to change the state of things. "Vote with your wallet" is a farce, and used to trick people into thinking they're getting something done by doing nothing and not saying anything, when it's just used to do exactly that; get us to do nothing and say nothing.

 

Voting with your wallet can work just fine, but remember that other people are voting with their wallets as well, ad you just might be out voted.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"SmirkDog.3160" said:

> "Vote with your wallet" does absolutely nothing unless you're spending your money. There's always those people that snatch up the new gem store items as soon as they're available and parade them through LA. Those people tell ANet that selling stuff at high prices and randomizing what you get when you make your purchase is financially beneficial to them.

>

> Meanwhile, me deciding I'm not going to buy anything from the gem store anymore does _nothing_ to change the state of things. "Vote with your wallet" is a farce, and used to trick people into thinking they're getting something done by doing nothing and not saying anything, when it's just used to do exactly that; get us to do nothing and say nothing.

 

If enough consumers/customers purchase a product or service, then obviously the price point selected by the company was good.

 

The fact that you might not be among the group which is okay with a price is insignificant to everyone else but you. Especially the company who should see no reason to drop their price only to accommodate customers who are less financially capable (yes, that seems harsh but that's how business works).

 

Now if the price is to high and a vast majority of customers decides they are not going to purchase content/service, then the price will be lowered. Obviously that seems not to be the case for mount skins (which are purely cosmetic and optional). The only thing you can complain about is that you are not on par with the average money spending customers (aka you spend less money on aspects of the game others are willing to spend more on).

[GrubySzymek.1362]

RNG (together with overpriced guaranteed selection) are there to get more money than customers are willing to pay. If you don't like RNG, your option would be buying mount skin packs.