Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged] - Page 52 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]

1495052545561

Comments

  • troops.8276troops.8276 Member ✭✭✭

    @pah.4931 said:
    I still find it so odd that you would quit or "never pay another dime in the game again" over this. Anet could have never even done Mount Skins at all. Two months ago, you didn't even have a mount for 5 years of the game's life. Why all of a sudden do you NEED these skins so badly? If they aren't worth it to you (I will spare you the economics lesson of supply and demand and Anet being able to set the price however they want) then just don't buy them and keep enjoying the game you blissfully enjoy in your mount skin ignorance 4 days ago...

    And anyone vilifying Anet for want to make more profits, I hope to GOD you are never in a leadership position at a company where you are responsible for keeping others employed, or -- worse -- that you never own or run your own company. Yikes.

    Yes profits are the most important thing, nothing else matters. How they are made is irrelevant. Companies are never sold and everyone laid off for profits. Never has there ever been any disasters after a company cut corners to increase the bottom line. But so you know I'm not putting Anet in that category btw. There not Exxon nor even Bet123.

  • @Djinn.9245 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:

    @Stu Grockalot.2937 said:
    Personally, I love everything to do with GW2 and want it to be the best game ever.
    I am also mindful that Arenanet do not work on the game for FREE!!

    This all costs money to pay the developers, and as a player I am happy to help support Arenanet and contribute towards the next Living World Season,(a considerable amount of content shipped for free by the way), and also balance patches, new Raid wings, new PvP content, WvW content, (again all for free).

    When you look at other online role playing games that force you to have a subscription of ~£10 a month, I won't name-drop any here, but suffice to say there was a massive motion picture based on it! ; then even after that GW2 is still cheaper.

    Mounts skins are optional, so if you chose to support the company that you love, to help develop the game that you love, stop your moaning.
    Otherwise you run the risk of sounding like a spoiled child who doesn't get their way, and how life is unfair and treats you poorly.
    Do the math, even if you CHOOSE to buy all the mounts, still cheaper than other online games!

    People are happy to pay for mount skins. Directly. Not for lottery tickets.

    I want mount skins to be like glider skins - I buy what I choose. There is only ONE REASON why they did mount skins this way: Anet knows that gamble boxes force people to spend more than they would if they simply purchased what they want. There is no other reason - forcing people to spend more money if they want skins.

    Yes, and I agree with WP on the fact that GW2 needs to make ANET money, so that we continue to have a game to play. I don't dispute that at all. We need to buy the things that are done the way we like them, when we buy gems. And before anyone starts in about gold to gems, those gems that you are buying with gold? Someone BOUGHT them with REAL MONEY. It is real money gems that go into the system. If they are needing money because they are working towards GW3, or they are trying to fundraise for the next expansion in the works, that is ok! What is NOT ok is doing what they are doing right now withholding skins from the game except for cash shop only RNG boxes.

    WP brought up a REALLY great point, as much as I am disappointed for other things he mentioned. He said if they did this five skins at a time, just put 5 skins in a loot box, then people would have bought it with no problem. If they released 5 more next week, in another box, then people would buy that one too. We have a problem because they have no ingame skins, and then they dumped THIRTY of them in a box, and said "Here you go guys! If you buy a huge amount of these, we'll give you a discount!!" Yeah, that's not the best way to make your players want to spend real money in the gemstore.

  • Demilion.5683Demilion.5683 Member ✭✭
    edited November 10, 2017

    Found this thread and immediately thought TL;DR.

    Are we really going to tear each other apart over mount skins that are entirely optional from the gem store?

  • Sylv.5324Sylv.5324 Member ✭✭✭

    @OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:
    A lot of people complain about the price, but the price is only ridiculous of you buy all the skins at once. If you buy them one at a time, over time, 400gems each is actually really good, cheaper than a lot of skins on the TP. My sole issue is the RNG. I have no interest in paying for things i dont want and wont use, and cant even sell. And to buy all of them, whether you do it at once or over a period of time, is NOT cheap, but you may not be able to get all the ones you want without doing so. And in the end, i dont want to pay a total of $120 once, or up to $400 over time, just to get a total of 4 or 5 skins i actually want. If it were not RNG, i could just buy the 4 or 5 inwanted for 400gems each, and not have a problem... even if they were more expensive than 400each, price them at the rate of glider skins and as long as they arnt RNG, id have no problem paying.

    The point is that the only way people can guaranteed get the skins they want is to either gamble or pay $120+, not that they want to buy them all.

  • Hey I spent 400 gems on a random mount. It came up Highland Harrier, but I do not show the option to mount the Highland Harrier in game. What gives?

  • Wolfheart.7483Wolfheart.7483 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 10, 2017

    We are not trying to piece together our own marketing plan for something, I don't think we need a fancy descriptor with a nice ring to it. It is simply a sales method that is not as customer friendly as some of the things Anet has done in the past. They have sold (and still do sell) several items that are worse than these adoption contracts.

    .> @troops.8276 said:

    So still no better descriptor for it. I don't have one either by the way. "A bit of a scam" maybe? Nah. Unfavourable sales method? That fits better but it doesn't roll off the tongue.

    @fizzypetal.7936 said:

    @troops.8276 said:

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    .

    @Shena Fu.5792 said:
    Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

    Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

    When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

    What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

    I wouldn't have said it was a scam or cheat either because there isn't anything hidden in the method of sale. The buyer knows what they are getting from the outset. I know my RNG luck is terrible so I'm not going to play the game.

    Those that do not yet have all the mounts those skins are for will hopefully understand that while a unique skin is guaranteed, a skin might also drop for mount they don't yet possess.

    Whether or not the sale method benefits the seller or buyer - that is all about perspective. The player that got their favourite skin with the first roll of the dice would be like 'hell yeah, great system!'. For others maybe not so much. Especially if the skin you really wanted didn't pop until the 30th dice roll.

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:

    @troops.8276 said:

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    .

    @Shena Fu.5792 said:
    Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

    Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

    When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

    What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

    Not once have I claimed they chose the best approach. This isn't all bad or all good. It is not a scam or cheat. It is represented in the store as exactly what it is. You may not like what it is but if someone buys an adoption contract to unlock a random new mount skin, they know exactly what they are getting: to unlock a random new mount skin.

    I agree with the fact that it should not be RNG and skins should be sold individually. But if you do purchase a random skin unlock with your heart set on a specific skin(s) and do not get what you hoped for, you were not scammed, cheated or tricked. You willingly took a chance and didn't get the outcome you hoped for.

  • @troops.8276 said:
    So still no better descriptor for it. I don't have one either by the way. "A bit of a scam" maybe? Nah. Unfavourable sales method? That fits better but it doesn't roll off the tongue.

    @fizzypetal.7936 said:

    @troops.8276 said:

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    .

    @Shena Fu.5792 said:
    Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

    Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

    When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

    What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

    I wouldn't have said it was a scam or cheat either because there isn't anything hidden in the method of sale. The buyer knows what they are getting from the outset. I know my RNG luck is terrible so I'm not going to play the game.

    Those that do not yet have all the mounts those skins are for will hopefully understand that while a unique skin is guaranteed, a skin might also drop for mount they don't yet possess.

    Whether or not the sale method benefits the seller or buyer - that is all about perspective. The player that got their favourite skin with the first roll of the dice would be like 'hell yeah, great system!'. For others maybe not so much. Especially if the skin you really wanted didn't pop until the 30th dice roll.

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:

    @troops.8276 said:

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    .

    @Shena Fu.5792 said:
    Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

    Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

    When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

    What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

    Not once have I claimed they chose the best approach. This isn't all bad or all good. It is not a scam or cheat. It is represented in the store as exactly what it is. You may not like what it is but if someone buys an adoption contract to unlock a random new mount skin, they know exactly what they are getting: to unlock a random new mount skin.

    I agree with the fact that it should not be RNG and skins should be sold individually. But if you do purchase a random skin unlock with your heart set on a specific skin(s) and do not get what you hoped for, you were not scammed, cheated or tricked. You willingly took a chance and didn't get the outcome you hoped for.

    Why does it need a label? It just is what it is...a bit of a lottery that players can choose to either participate in or not. I choose not. ;)

  • @Camaro Charr.2805 said:
    Hey I spent 400 gems on a random mount. It came up Highland Harrier, but I do not show the option to mount the Highland Harrier in game. What gives?

    No, you bought a skin. You have to have POF and unlock the type of mount that the skin goes to, before you can use that. That is not an actual "mount." That is a skin for an existing mount.

  • @Camaro Charr.2805 said:
    Hey I spent 400 gems on a random mount. It came up Highland Harrier, but I do not show the option to mount the Highland Harrier in game. What gives?

    Its a SKIN.
    there is an option to change mount skins in the hero-menu

  • Silyth.7382Silyth.7382 Member ✭✭
    edited November 10, 2017

    The way the mount skins were done is super frustrating having no control over what skin or even what creature it is for. It's a lot of money to get a lot you don't want.
    I assume that they are hoping the random (other than just trying to force a large amount of money) is to get diversity in skins shown. But that just seems silly. We all have different looks. I prefer more realistic while other prefer so shiny that your eyes burn from the sun like quality of it. We would diversify ourselves.
    What would be great if they did instead:

    • in store: 500 for specific skin, 2500 for matching set of the 5.
    • in game: achievements / tasks done with mounts to unlock skins
    • in game: purchasable skins from the original npc we got them from. These can be a rediculous amount of gold, that's fine. Tempts people buying gold with gems or makes people play.
  • Endless Soul.5178Endless Soul.5178 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 10, 2017

    I never thought a thread about mount skins and Anet's handling of them (64 pages at the time of this post) would surpass the old Mounts [Merged] thread (41 pages).

    Asura characters: Zerina | Myndee | Bekka | Akee | Feyyt | Nuumy | Tylee | Rissa | Jaxxi | Sixx | Claara | Conii | Jymm | Synn

    Your skin will wrinkle and your youth will fade but your soul is endless

  • Goettel.4389Goettel.4389 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I'm not interested in the skins myself, but wouldn't pay for just a chance to get the one(s) I want if I did.
    And I find it hard to believe many would, so it just seems bad business to me.

  • I think the price is good with the 2000 gem mount and that they should just get rid of the RNG aspect.
    Make the coolest mounts 2000 gems, the visually very different but without special effects mounts 1200 gems and the ones with just new dye channels like 400 gem or something like that. 2000 gems is like 550 gold or something and that is pretty close to the volcanus, infinite light or foefire weapons. Visually the mounts give much more than any legendary or glider or anything in game so I think thats ok for a cost of mediocre looking weapon.
    I just really dont like the RNG.
    Awesome job with the mount skins A net. :) I just hope all the best for a game I have loved so long and still love.

  • @Endless Soul.5178 said:
    I never thought a thread about mount skins and Anet's handling of them (64 pages at the time of this post) would surpass the old Mounts [Merged] thread (41 pages).

    I think it's a good example that people really do like the skins but are frustrated that they can't buy the ones they want directly like you can with gliders and outfits.

  • honestly and truth be told i think the player base for once . has more than the right to not be happy about the matters of the mount skins and RNG Loot boxes!!! guild wars was never like that and the fact this game is named after that nor should be this game. guild wars2 should be close to the same guild wars with improvements anything other wise and different is just a copy cat game. and them are a nickel a dozen today

  • @Silyth.7382 said:
    The way the mount skins were done is super frustrating having no control over what skin or even what creature it is for. It's a lot of money to get a lot you don't want.
    I assume that they are hoping the random (other than just trying to force a large amount of money) is to get diversity in skins shown. But that just seems silly. We all have different looks. I prefer more realistic while other prefer so shiny that your eyes burn from the sun like quality of it. We would diversify ourselves.
    What would be great if they did instead:

    • in store: 500 for specific skin, 2500 for matching set of the 5.
    • in game: achievements / tasks done with mounts to unlock skins
    • in game: purchasable skins from the original npc we got them from. These can be a rediculous amount of gold, that's fine. Tempts people buying gold with gems or makes people play.

    paying for them with gold from the npcs we got the mounts initially would be even better than gems.
    but the REAL problem is the RNG (that would obviously also vanish with the gold-solution)

  • Rashagar.8349Rashagar.8349 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 10, 2017

    @Elyssandariel.2679 said:

    @Djinn.9245 said:

    @Oglaf.1074 said:
    Has Anet done anything other than merge the threads like this? Any response in this thread? Their social media? Anything?

    Or are they just bunkering down and praying that this will blow over?

    Yes, they have outright closed the thread that talks about the damage of gamble boxes instead of merging it. Interesting, huh?

    Yeah, I noticed that too. All of our psychological evidence gone in one fell swoop, when they eventually clear it away. I might repost my stuff in this thread just so everyone gets a chance to see it before the other thread "disappears." I love how that merged almost ALL of the other threads, but that one.

    Speaking of conspiracy theories, anyone else feeling like this ridiculous level of public blowback over a pricing plan is being engineered and puppeted by some tiny portion of unscrupulous string pullers for their own selfish ends?
    It's the only rational explanation.

    =P

  • pah.4931pah.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Galactic.6453 said:

    @pah.4931 said:
    I still find it so odd that you would quit or "never pay another dime in the game again" over this. Anet could have never even done Mount Skins at all. Two months ago, you didn't even have a mount for 5 years of the game's life. Why all of a sudden do you NEED these skins so badly? If they aren't worth it to you (I will spare you the economics lesson of supply and demand and Anet being able to set the price however they want) then just don't buy them and keep enjoying the game you blissfully enjoy in your mount skin ignorance 4 days ago...

    And anyone vilifying Anet for want to make more profits, I hope to GOD you are never in a leadership position at a company where you are responsible for keeping others employed, or -- worse -- that you never own or run your own company. Yikes.

    This isn't about needing to have anything. This is about wanting to be able to buy what you want to buy. No one is villifying Anet for wanting earn money. Doesn't mean people will be fine with them doing it with any means necessary. This is just a bad and manipulative business practice and calling them out for bad and manipulative business practice. It's as simple as that.

    No laws were broken, and I GUARANTEE YOU they are making more money this way. If you actually love this game, you would see that and be happy that this "manipulative" (lol) business practice is keeping the lights on. OK, so you don't get the shiny raptor you want, but maybe now you might get one more expansion before the game shutters.

    I don't want to go into another ROI business lesson in this thread, so suffice it to say... "making money" doesn't prevent companies from going under. They need to make "enough money" ... when budget time comes around and NCSoft has a few million to invest, it's looking more and more like that's going to be going to their mobile games which make about 400% more ROI than a huge, lunking, aging game like GW2. If I got 2 bucks to invest, why get a $.50 return when i could get a $4.25 return?? "Profitable" can still go under, guys.

    (p.s. calling someone bad and manipulative is kind of the exact definition of vilifying...)

  • @Jaskar.3071 said:

    @Camaro Charr.2805 said:
    Hey I spent 400 gems on a random mount. It came up Highland Harrier, but I do not show the option to mount the Highland Harrier in game. What gives?

    Its a SKIN.
    there is an option to change mount skins in the hero-menu

    In the hero menu it is showing as locked for me... has a lock symbol over it.

  • @Rezzet.3614 said:
    Can we stop exaggerating its too soon to call doom on gw2 cuz of the shady mount skin lootboxes. As long they add non rng non lootbox skins too, to the store in the future i see no problem, so yeh too soon.

    The issue people have is that right now they don't have any skins in the store that they can buy directly. Also there's an argument to be had of how this has affected Anet's reputation both with the player base and those outside. Dulfy and Jim Sterling have already made comments condemning this system as it is right now where both influencers have an audience outside of just GW2 players.

  • troops.8276troops.8276 Member ✭✭✭

    So 'unfriendly sales method' then. Honestly I think that is what people should say. I understand though why people will just use a more blunt and direct word to get the point across. Why try and censor them though?

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    We are not trying to piece together our own marketing plan for something, I don't think we need a fancy descriptor with a nice ring to it. It is simply a sales method that is not as customer friendly as some of the things Anet has done in the past. They have sold (and still do) sell several items that are worse than these adoption contracts.

    .> @troops.8276 said:

    So still no better descriptor for it. I don't have one either by the way. "A bit of a scam" maybe? Nah. Unfavourable sales method? That fits better but it doesn't roll off the tongue.

    @fizzypetal.7936 said:

    @troops.8276 said:

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    .

    @Shena Fu.5792 said:
    Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

    Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

    When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

    What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

    I wouldn't have said it was a scam or cheat either because there isn't anything hidden in the method of sale. The buyer knows what they are getting from the outset. I know my RNG luck is terrible so I'm not going to play the game.

    Those that do not yet have all the mounts those skins are for will hopefully understand that while a unique skin is guaranteed, a skin might also drop for mount they don't yet possess.

    Whether or not the sale method benefits the seller or buyer - that is all about perspective. The player that got their favourite skin with the first roll of the dice would be like 'hell yeah, great system!'. For others maybe not so much. Especially if the skin you really wanted didn't pop until the 30th dice roll.

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:

    @troops.8276 said:

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    .

    @Shena Fu.5792 said:
    Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

    Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

    When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

    What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

    Not once have I claimed they chose the best approach. This isn't all bad or all good. It is not a scam or cheat. It is represented in the store as exactly what it is. You may not like what it is but if someone buys an adoption contract to unlock a random new mount skin, they know exactly what they are getting: to unlock a random new mount skin.

    I agree with the fact that it should not be RNG and skins should be sold individually. But if you do purchase a random skin unlock with your heart set on a specific skin(s) and do not get what you hoped for, you were not scammed, cheated or tricked. You willingly took a chance and didn't get the outcome you hoped for.

    @fizzypetal.7936 said:

    @troops.8276 said:
    So still no better descriptor for it. I don't have one either by the way. "A bit of a scam" maybe? Nah. Unfavourable sales method? That fits better but it doesn't roll off the tongue.

    @fizzypetal.7936 said:

    @troops.8276 said:

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    .

    @Shena Fu.5792 said:
    Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

    Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

    When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

    What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

    I wouldn't have said it was a scam or cheat either because there isn't anything hidden in the method of sale. The buyer knows what they are getting from the outset. I know my RNG luck is terrible so I'm not going to play the game.

    Those that do not yet have all the mounts those skins are for will hopefully understand that while a unique skin is guaranteed, a skin might also drop for mount they don't yet possess.

    Whether or not the sale method benefits the seller or buyer - that is all about perspective. The player that got their favourite skin with the first roll of the dice would be like 'hell yeah, great system!'. For others maybe not so much. Especially if the skin you really wanted didn't pop until the 30th dice roll.

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:

    @troops.8276 said:

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    .

    @Shena Fu.5792 said:
    Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

    Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

    When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

    What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

    Not once have I claimed they chose the best approach. This isn't all bad or all good. It is not a scam or cheat. It is represented in the store as exactly what it is. You may not like what it is but if someone buys an adoption contract to unlock a random new mount skin, they know exactly what they are getting: to unlock a random new mount skin.

    I agree with the fact that it should not be RNG and skins should be sold individually. But if you do purchase a random skin unlock with your heart set on a specific skin(s) and do not get what you hoped for, you were not scammed, cheated or tricked. You willingly took a chance and didn't get the outcome you hoped for.

    Why does it need a label? It just is what it is...a bit of a lottery that players can choose to either participate in or not. I choose not. ;)

  • @Djinn.9245 said:

    There are companies that make money by good methods: making good products that people want to buy and give word of mouth to their friends about what a good product it is and what a great value for their money. And there are companies that make money by using things like psychological tricks to try to force people to buy more than they really want, or have less-good products that they want to bundle with the good products in order to make money. (Which is what Anet is doing with the RNG mount skins.)

    I totally agree with you 100%. This is absolutely shady how they handled this. You and I and a few other people that have posted too know the science behind this stuff. It's all Behavioral Modification 101. Watson and Skinner would love this stuff going on right now. I would rather just have a few skins ingame, even if they were just the 4 channel ones, that we can work towards, and then buy the others directly. Someone made a point that they based this whole expansion on mounts and very little else, so that ANET could monetize it so heavily in the gemstore. I don't mind something being monetized, just not to the extreme we are seeing now. Prices are too high for RNG or for individual skins for the one they DID release. If they had done this RIGHT they could have made SO MUCH MONEY.

    @Elyssandariel.2679 said: I don't dispute that at all. We need to buy the things that are done the way we like them, when we buy gems. And before anyone starts in about gold to gems, those gems that you are buying with gold? Someone BOUGHT them with REAL MONEY. It is real money gems that go into the system. If they are needing money because they are working towards GW3, or they are trying to fundraise for the next expansion in the works, that is ok! What is NOT ok is doing what they are doing right now withholding skins from the game except for cash shop only RNG boxes.

    WP brought up a REALLY great point, as much as I am disappointed for other things he mentioned. He said if they did this five skins at a time, just put 5 skins in a loot box, then people would have bought it with no problem. If they released 5 more next week, in another box, then people would buy that one too. We have a problem because they have no ingame skins, and then they dumped THIRTY of them in a box, and said "Here you go guys! If you buy a huge amount of these, we'll give you a discount!!" Yeah, that's not the best way to make your players want to spend real money in the gemstore.

    I agree that many people would have had less of a problem with an RNG box with only 5 skins. I would not have been one of those people, but many would. It would still not be a simple 1:1 of me buying the skin I want.

    I wouldn't like it either, but I wouldn't mind it so terribly much as I do now. It's a 1 in 5 chance instead of a 1 in 30, to begin with. Sometimes random loot boxes are fun to play with. I like opening them as much as the rest of the players. I think they should keep the boxes on the market, for people that like to have that kind of fun. They should reduce the chance and split up the skins somehow, definitely. But, put the skins out for individual purchase, as well!!!

  • Sylv.5324Sylv.5324 Member ✭✭✭

    @Rashagar.8349 said:

    @Elyssandariel.2679 said:

    @Djinn.9245 said:

    @Oglaf.1074 said:
    Has Anet done anything other than merge the threads like this? Any response in this thread? Their social media? Anything?

    Or are they just bunkering down and praying that this will blow over?

    Yes, they have outright closed the thread that talks about the damage of gamble boxes instead of merging it. Interesting, huh?

    Yeah, I noticed that too. All of our psychological evidence gone in one fell swoop, when they eventually clear it away. I might repost my stuff in this thread just so everyone gets a chance to see it before the other thread "disappears." I love how that merged almost ALL of the other threads, but that one.

    Speaking of conspiracy theories, anyone else feeling like this ridiculous level of public blowback over a pricing plan is being engineered and puppeted by some tiny portion of unscrupulous string pullers for their own selfish ends?
    It's the only rational explanation.

    =P

    No, it's not the only rational explanation. Not everything is a conspiracy.

  • Lanhelin.3480Lanhelin.3480 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 10, 2017

    I suggest to everyone who wants to show her/his dissatisfaction with ANets skin rng lootboxes ingame too to advertise and join the lootbox protest near Desider Atum in Metrica Province. Go to one of Hrouda's protest stations and pick up a protest sign (this is possible even after the heart was completed and it's also visible when mounted, see screenshot below).

    https://imgur.com/a/4OQ7r

  • Sylv.5324Sylv.5324 Member ✭✭✭

    @pah.4931 said:

    No laws were broken, and I GUARANTEE YOU they are making more money this way. If you actually love this game, you would see that and be happy that this "manipulative" (lol) business practice is keeping the lights on. OK, so you don't get the shiny raptor you want, but maybe now you might get one more expansion before the game shutters.

    Just makes it clear that there's no longer any point in investing in a game that's going so broke that it's going to shut down soon. Maybe folks should have stuck to GW1's original design, that one lasted over a decade.

  • Rashagar.8349Rashagar.8349 Member ✭✭✭

    @Sylv.5324 said:

    @Rashagar.8349 said:

    @Elyssandariel.2679 said:

    @Djinn.9245 said:

    @Oglaf.1074 said:
    Has Anet done anything other than merge the threads like this? Any response in this thread? Their social media? Anything?

    Or are they just bunkering down and praying that this will blow over?

    Yes, they have outright closed the thread that talks about the damage of gamble boxes instead of merging it. Interesting, huh?

    Yeah, I noticed that too. All of our psychological evidence gone in one fell swoop, when they eventually clear it away. I might repost my stuff in this thread just so everyone gets a chance to see it before the other thread "disappears." I love how that merged almost ALL of the other threads, but that one.

    Speaking of conspiracy theories, anyone else feeling like this ridiculous level of public blowback over a pricing plan is being engineered and puppeted by some tiny portion of unscrupulous string pullers for their own selfish ends?
    It's the only rational explanation.

    =P

    No, it's not the only rational explanation. Not everything is a conspiracy.

    That sounds like something an unscrupulous string puller would say =P

    (It was a joke based on the quoted post's inferred Anet conspiracy)

  • @AlexanderDracul.7492 said:

    @Camaro Charr.2805 said:

    @Camaro Charr.2805 said:

    @Jaskar.3071 said:

    @Camaro Charr.2805 said:
    Hey I spent 400 gems on a random mount. It came up Highland Harrier, but I do not show the option to mount the Highland Harrier in game. What gives?

    Its a SKIN.
    there is an option to change mount skins in the hero-menu

    In the hero menu it is showing as locked for me... has a lock symbol over it.

    Let me guess... because I don't have the original griffon mount, then I cant use it... kitten

    That's right. It's another issue people have with this system. If you get 3 griffon skins in a row, for example, then you can't use them until you get the griffon mount.

    Ill be on the phone with Arenanet later....

  • I am not trying to censor anyone. They aren't using "more blunt and direct" words to describe the adoption contracts, they're using incorrect words.

    @troops.8276 said:
    So 'unfriendly sales method' then. Honestly I think that is what people should say. I understand though why people will just use a more blunt and direct word to get the point across. Why try and censor them though?

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    We are not trying to piece together our own marketing plan for something, I don't think we need a fancy descriptor with a nice ring to it. It is simply a sales method that is not as customer friendly as some of the things Anet has done in the past. They have sold (and still do) sell several items that are worse than these adoption contracts.

    .> @troops.8276 said:

    So still no better descriptor for it. I don't have one either by the way. "A bit of a scam" maybe? Nah. Unfavourable sales method? That fits better but it doesn't roll off the tongue.

    @fizzypetal.7936 said:

    @troops.8276 said:

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    .

    @Shena Fu.5792 said:
    Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

    Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

    When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

    What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

    I wouldn't have said it was a scam or cheat either because there isn't anything hidden in the method of sale. The buyer knows what they are getting from the outset. I know my RNG luck is terrible so I'm not going to play the game.

    Those that do not yet have all the mounts those skins are for will hopefully understand that while a unique skin is guaranteed, a skin might also drop for mount they don't yet possess.

    Whether or not the sale method benefits the seller or buyer - that is all about perspective. The player that got their favourite skin with the first roll of the dice would be like 'hell yeah, great system!'. For others maybe not so much. Especially if the skin you really wanted didn't pop until the 30th dice roll.

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:

    @troops.8276 said:

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    .

    @Shena Fu.5792 said:
    Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

    Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

    When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

    What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

    Not once have I claimed they chose the best approach. This isn't all bad or all good. It is not a scam or cheat. It is represented in the store as exactly what it is. You may not like what it is but if someone buys an adoption contract to unlock a random new mount skin, they know exactly what they are getting: to unlock a random new mount skin.

    I agree with the fact that it should not be RNG and skins should be sold individually. But if you do purchase a random skin unlock with your heart set on a specific skin(s) and do not get what you hoped for, you were not scammed, cheated or tricked. You willingly took a chance and didn't get the outcome you hoped for.

    @fizzypetal.7936 said:

    @troops.8276 said:
    So still no better descriptor for it. I don't have one either by the way. "A bit of a scam" maybe? Nah. Unfavourable sales method? That fits better but it doesn't roll off the tongue.

    @fizzypetal.7936 said:

    @troops.8276 said:

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    .

    @Shena Fu.5792 said:
    Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

    Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

    When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

    What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

    I wouldn't have said it was a scam or cheat either because there isn't anything hidden in the method of sale. The buyer knows what they are getting from the outset. I know my RNG luck is terrible so I'm not going to play the game.

    Those that do not yet have all the mounts those skins are for will hopefully understand that while a unique skin is guaranteed, a skin might also drop for mount they don't yet possess.

    Whether or not the sale method benefits the seller or buyer - that is all about perspective. The player that got their favourite skin with the first roll of the dice would be like 'hell yeah, great system!'. For others maybe not so much. Especially if the skin you really wanted didn't pop until the 30th dice roll.

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:

    @troops.8276 said:

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    .

    @Shena Fu.5792 said:
    Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

    Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

    When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

    What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

    Not once have I claimed they chose the best approach. This isn't all bad or all good. It is not a scam or cheat. It is represented in the store as exactly what it is. You may not like what it is but if someone buys an adoption contract to unlock a random new mount skin, they know exactly what they are getting: to unlock a random new mount skin.

    I agree with the fact that it should not be RNG and skins should be sold individually. But if you do purchase a random skin unlock with your heart set on a specific skin(s) and do not get what you hoped for, you were not scammed, cheated or tricked. You willingly took a chance and didn't get the outcome you hoped for.

    Why does it need a label? It just is what it is...a bit of a lottery that players can choose to either participate in or not. I choose not. ;)

  • Sylv.5324Sylv.5324 Member ✭✭✭

    @Rashagar.8349 said:

    That sounds like something an unscrupulous string puller would say =P

    (It was a joke based on the quoted post's inferred Anet conspiracy)

    I'm not paid enough to be an unscrupulous string puller. :<

  • Oglaf.1074Oglaf.1074 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Stu Grockalot.2937 said:
    Personally, I love everything to do with GW2 and want it to be the best game ever.
    I am also mindful that Arenanet do not work on the game for FREE!!

    This all costs money to pay the developers, and as a player I am happy to help support Arenanet and contribute towards the next Living World Season,(a considerable amount of content shipped for free by the way), and also balance patches, new Raid wings, new PvP content, WvW content, (again all for free).

    When you look at other online role playing games that force you to have a subscription of ~£10 a month, I won't name-drop any here, but suffice to say there was a massive motion picture based on it! ; then even after that GW2 is still cheaper.

    Mounts skins are optional, so if you chose to support the company that you love, to help develop the game that you love, stop your moaning.
    Otherwise you run the risk of sounding like a spoiled child who doesn't get their way, and how life is unfair and treats you poorly.
    Do the math, even if you CHOOSE to buy all the mounts, still cheaper than other online games!

    For the last time, nobody is complaining about premium content/microtransactions here. The GW2 userbase has happily kept the game afloat with buyng things for Gems for years by now, so there's clearly not an issue there. The keyword being, of course, buying things. Not gambling for things.

    Could you purchase these skins directly instead of this gambling nonsense, nobody would complain and it'd be business as usual.

    Please Anet give us a hide Chest Armour-option. Tattoo-clad Norns everywhere beg of you.

  • troops.8276troops.8276 Member ✭✭✭

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    I am not trying to censor anyone. They aren't using "more blunt and direct" words to describe the adoption contracts, they're using incorrect words.

    @troops.8276 said:
    So 'unfriendly sales method' then. Honestly I think that is what people should say. I understand though why people will just use a more blunt and direct word to get the point across. Why try and censor them though?

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    We are not trying to piece together our own marketing plan for something, I don't think we need a fancy descriptor with a nice ring to it. It is simply a sales method that is not as customer friendly as some of the things Anet has done in the past. They have sold (and still do) sell several items that are worse than these adoption contracts.

    .> @troops.8276 said:

    So still no better descriptor for it. I don't have one either by the way. "A bit of a scam" maybe? Nah. Unfavourable sales method? That fits better but it doesn't roll off the tongue.

    @fizzypetal.7936 said:

    @troops.8276 said:

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    .

    @Shena Fu.5792 said:
    Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

    Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

    When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

    What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

    I wouldn't have said it was a scam or cheat either because there isn't anything hidden in the method of sale. The buyer knows what they are getting from the outset. I know my RNG luck is terrible so I'm not going to play the game.

    Those that do not yet have all the mounts those skins are for will hopefully understand that while a unique skin is guaranteed, a skin might also drop for mount they don't yet possess.

    Whether or not the sale method benefits the seller or buyer - that is all about perspective. The player that got their favourite skin with the first roll of the dice would be like 'hell yeah, great system!'. For others maybe not so much. Especially if the skin you really wanted didn't pop until the 30th dice roll.

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:

    @troops.8276 said:

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    .

    @Shena Fu.5792 said:
    Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

    Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

    When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

    What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

    Not once have I claimed they chose the best approach. This isn't all bad or all good. It is not a scam or cheat. It is represented in the store as exactly what it is. You may not like what it is but if someone buys an adoption contract to unlock a random new mount skin, they know exactly what they are getting: to unlock a random new mount skin.

    I agree with the fact that it should not be RNG and skins should be sold individually. But if you do purchase a random skin unlock with your heart set on a specific skin(s) and do not get what you hoped for, you were not scammed, cheated or tricked. You willingly took a chance and didn't get the outcome you hoped for.

    @fizzypetal.7936 said:

    @troops.8276 said:
    So still no better descriptor for it. I don't have one either by the way. "A bit of a scam" maybe? Nah. Unfavourable sales method? That fits better but it doesn't roll off the tongue.

    @fizzypetal.7936 said:

    @troops.8276 said:

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    .

    @Shena Fu.5792 said:
    Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

    Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

    When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

    What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

    I wouldn't have said it was a scam or cheat either because there isn't anything hidden in the method of sale. The buyer knows what they are getting from the outset. I know my RNG luck is terrible so I'm not going to play the game.

    Those that do not yet have all the mounts those skins are for will hopefully understand that while a unique skin is guaranteed, a skin might also drop for mount they don't yet possess.

    Whether or not the sale method benefits the seller or buyer - that is all about perspective. The player that got their favourite skin with the first roll of the dice would be like 'hell yeah, great system!'. For others maybe not so much. Especially if the skin you really wanted didn't pop until the 30th dice roll.

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:

    @troops.8276 said:

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    .

    @Shena Fu.5792 said:
    Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

    Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

    When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

    What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

    Not once have I claimed they chose the best approach. This isn't all bad or all good. It is not a scam or cheat. It is represented in the store as exactly what it is. You may not like what it is but if someone buys an adoption contract to unlock a random new mount skin, they know exactly what they are getting: to unlock a random new mount skin.

    I agree with the fact that it should not be RNG and skins should be sold individually. But if you do purchase a random skin unlock with your heart set on a specific skin(s) and do not get what you hoped for, you were not scammed, cheated or tricked. You willingly took a chance and didn't get the outcome you hoped for.

    Why does it need a label? It just is what it is...a bit of a lottery that players can choose to either participate in or not. I choose not. ;)

    If you say so but that's why a asked you what the correct word was.

  • I don't think it's fair to blame the devs since it could be an NCsoft analyst telling GW2 to implement something, but I hope there is a change of some sort to the system.

  • pah.4931pah.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sylv.5324 said:

    @pah.4931 said:

    No laws were broken, and I GUARANTEE YOU they are making more money this way. If you actually love this game, you would see that and be happy that this "manipulative" (lol) business practice is keeping the lights on. OK, so you don't get the shiny raptor you want, but maybe now you might get one more expansion before the game shutters.

    Just makes it clear that there's no longer any point in investing in a game that's going so broke that it's going to shut down soon. Maybe folks should have stuck to GW1's original design, that one lasted over a decade.

    GW1 may as well have been launched on a different planet. Gaming, let alone MMOs, was completely different then. Smart phones weren't even a thing. But I still can't wrap my head around people being able to 1) not buy mount skins this way if they don't like and live with it (3 months ago you didn't even have a mount!), and 2) be happy a game they like is making more money to develop more of the game they like.

    I don't like lottery boxes. I think they are terrible (when using $$$ - but I try to live on a very tight budget so I can retire young and rich -- though I guess that makes me a greedy kitten???). I don't find them all that fun. I think the Skins should be able to be sold on the TP. I think it would be fun if you could earn a few lottery boxes in game doing some quests or as drops(because if I am not using my money, I do think lottery boxes are fun). I will not spend any of my money on them (cash or gold). But I support Anet's decision to attempt to create more profits without ANY negative impact on game design.

    And frankly, if you like this game, you should too.

  • hugo.4705hugo.4705 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 10, 2017

    Totally stupid, not gonna spend 400gems sooo hmm arould 240 gold I think for a random mounts, enough of paying for anything like a cow! I rather prefer the good old olg gw2 when everything was accessible for you apart gems, outfits and instruments! I'm not gonna spend 300 gold for a worthless griffon and not more for a mounts furthermore, a totally random one. Whether you make a clear specific mount adoption for this amount of gem whether if YOU can't, you make it accessible like the four first mount in crystal desert! More and more A "pay to get" game... Foolish with this mount adoption item, a ton people will get away from the game. NO RANDOM LOOT BOXES
    BTW what about these mordrem blooms? I can't even get the scarlet briar gloves and shoulder pads now from mordrem specialist! Find a solution like trading them for toxic spores!!

    +++In creative mood. New Engie Elite spec' , Housing , New asuran expansion , Designing a new lounge , New GameMode
    +++NEW: AEP Asuran Expansion Project available on WIKI.
    +++New: GEM GW2 Exploration Map: Discover unusual places around tyria: Here (OSM map)

  • Sylv.5324Sylv.5324 Member ✭✭✭

    @pah.4931 said:

    And frankly, if you like this game, you should too.

    Of course I like this game, that's why I'm ticked off that the reason I bought this xpac was gated behind 'gamble or pay a further $120 for a limited time to get the skin you want'. I already paid for the ultimate edition, why was this not included, if they were that desperate for cash?

  • Since you seem hellbent on trying to assign a single word label to this for some reason, how about: unsatisfactory.

    .> @troops.8276 said:

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    I am not trying to censor anyone. They aren't using "more blunt and direct" words to describe the adoption contracts, they're using incorrect words.

    @troops.8276 said:
    So 'unfriendly sales method' then. Honestly I think that is what people should say. I understand though why people will just use a more blunt and direct word to get the point across. Why try and censor them though?

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    We are not trying to piece together our own marketing plan for something, I don't think we need a fancy descriptor with a nice ring to it. It is simply a sales method that is not as customer friendly as some of the things Anet has done in the past. They have sold (and still do) sell several items that are worse than these adoption contracts.

    .> @troops.8276 said:

    So still no better descriptor for it. I don't have one either by the way. "A bit of a scam" maybe? Nah. Unfavourable sales method? That fits better but it doesn't roll off the tongue.

    @fizzypetal.7936 said:

    @troops.8276 said:

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    .

    @Shena Fu.5792 said:
    Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

    Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

    When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

    What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

    I wouldn't have said it was a scam or cheat either because there isn't anything hidden in the method of sale. The buyer knows what they are getting from the outset. I know my RNG luck is terrible so I'm not going to play the game.

    Those that do not yet have all the mounts those skins are for will hopefully understand that while a unique skin is guaranteed, a skin might also drop for mount they don't yet possess.

    Whether or not the sale method benefits the seller or buyer - that is all about perspective. The player that got their favourite skin with the first roll of the dice would be like 'hell yeah, great system!'. For others maybe not so much. Especially if the skin you really wanted didn't pop until the 30th dice roll.

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:

    @troops.8276 said:

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    .

    @Shena Fu.5792 said:
    Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

    Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

    When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

    What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

    Not once have I claimed they chose the best approach. This isn't all bad or all good. It is not a scam or cheat. It is represented in the store as exactly what it is. You may not like what it is but if someone buys an adoption contract to unlock a random new mount skin, they know exactly what they are getting: to unlock a random new mount skin.

    I agree with the fact that it should not be RNG and skins should be sold individually. But if you do purchase a random skin unlock with your heart set on a specific skin(s) and do not get what you hoped for, you were not scammed, cheated or tricked. You willingly took a chance and didn't get the outcome you hoped for.

    @fizzypetal.7936 said:

    @troops.8276 said:
    So still no better descriptor for it. I don't have one either by the way. "A bit of a scam" maybe? Nah. Unfavourable sales method? That fits better but it doesn't roll off the tongue.

    @fizzypetal.7936 said:

    @troops.8276 said:

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    .

    @Shena Fu.5792 said:
    Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

    Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

    When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

    What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

    I wouldn't have said it was a scam or cheat either because there isn't anything hidden in the method of sale. The buyer knows what they are getting from the outset. I know my RNG luck is terrible so I'm not going to play the game.

    Those that do not yet have all the mounts those skins are for will hopefully understand that while a unique skin is guaranteed, a skin might also drop for mount they don't yet possess.

    Whether or not the sale method benefits the seller or buyer - that is all about perspective. The player that got their favourite skin with the first roll of the dice would be like 'hell yeah, great system!'. For others maybe not so much. Especially if the skin you really wanted didn't pop until the 30th dice roll.

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:

    @troops.8276 said:

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    .

    @Shena Fu.5792 said:
    Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

    Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

    When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

    What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

    Not once have I claimed they chose the best approach. This isn't all bad or all good. It is not a scam or cheat. It is represented in the store as exactly what it is. You may not like what it is but if someone buys an adoption contract to unlock a random new mount skin, they know exactly what they are getting: to unlock a random new mount skin.

    I agree with the fact that it should not be RNG and skins should be sold individually. But if you do purchase a random skin unlock with your heart set on a specific skin(s) and do not get what you hoped for, you were not scammed, cheated or tricked. You willingly took a chance and didn't get the outcome you hoped for.

    Why does it need a label? It just is what it is...a bit of a lottery that players can choose to either participate in or not. I choose not. ;)

    If you say so but that's why a asked you what the correct word was.

  • @Rashagar.8349 said:

    @wolfyrik.2017 said:

    @MailMail.6534 said:
    I urge everyone to watch WP’s video on the issue. Logic, integrity and rationality in the midst of this embarrassingly dramatic time is needed. Shame on the gw2 community for pushing a nasty narrative against anet devs, fellow players etc.

    Shame on you for your hasty generalisation of everybody who's against the Gambling mount skins as "pushing a nasty narative".

    That's an act of propaganda.

    Shame on you.

    Overblown false outrage because you think anything less than that wouldn't get noticed and you desperately want to get your own way is also an act of propaganda.

    Getting youtubers with very little personal ties to the game but a large audience to weigh in on something they know very little about is also an act of propaganda.

    Bullying people in-game who disagree with your view point is also an act of propaganda.

    All these things are way more shameful than the comment you quoted.

    THANK YOU!

    And btw, a hasty generalization it was not. Take a look at reddit or twitter.

  • Erulogos.2591Erulogos.2591 Member ✭✭✭

    @pah.4931 said:
    But I support Anet's decision to attempt to create more profits without ANY negative impact on game design.

    This right here is where you and others differ strongly. If this method actually does make the money for Anet you believe it will, what are the odds of us being able to get mounts any other way? They won't give us achievement mount skins when they can make money from the same art team effort. And face the fact, this is not a game about skill, it is a game about cosmetics, so access to those cosmetics really does impact the game design.

  • pah.4931pah.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sylv.5324 said:

    @pah.4931 said:

    And frankly, if you like this game, you should too.

    Of course I like this game, that's why I'm ticked off that the reason I bought this xpac was gated behind 'gamble or pay a further $120 for a limited time to get the skin you want'. I already paid for the ultimate edition, why was this not included, if they were that desperate for cash?

    OK. First of all. Anet never promised Mount Skins with the expansion at all. I can't recall a single marketing device that stated mounts would even have skins. So you can't claim that first point. You bought PoF as it was advertised.

    Second of all, if they indeed are "strapped for cash" then why would they include something for free in a package that you bought without them including it? You see how that's silly right? (I still feel like most of you need business lessons ... "making money" isn't enough when you have bosses and investors and boards of directors)

    Now let me ask you something. Would you have bought PoF if they announced there would never be any mount skins? If you still would have, then just go ahead and pretend there aren't any mount skins. Boom. Have fun!

  • pah.4931pah.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Erulogos.2591 said:

    @pah.4931 said:
    But I support Anet's decision to attempt to create more profits without ANY negative impact on game design.

    This right here is where you and others differ strongly. If this method actually does make the money for Anet you believe it will, what are the odds of us being able to get mounts any other way? They won't give us achievement mount skins when they can make money from the same art team effort. And face the fact, this is not a game about skill, it is a game about cosmetics, so access to those cosmetics really does impact the game design.

    Hmm. I would say since there currently is a skin for sale for 2000 gems without any RNG, that kinda kills your argument that "we won't be able to get mount SKINS any other way" ... right??

    This is not a game about skill or cosmetics. It's a game about fun. If you have fun playing it, then you'll be glad that folks buying loot boxes might get you another expansion or two. If you don't have fun playing it, then why are you playing it. :P

  • troops.8276troops.8276 Member ✭✭✭

    @pah.4931 said:

    @Galactic.6453 said:

    @pah.4931 said:
    I still find it so odd that you would quit or "never pay another dime in the game again" over this. Anet could have never even done Mount Skins at all. Two months ago, you didn't even have a mount for 5 years of the game's life. Why all of a sudden do you NEED these skins so badly? If they aren't worth it to you (I will spare you the economics lesson of supply and demand and Anet being able to set the price however they want) then just don't buy them and keep enjoying the game you blissfully enjoy in your mount skin ignorance 4 days ago...

    And anyone vilifying Anet for want to make more profits, I hope to GOD you are never in a leadership position at a company where you are responsible for keeping others employed, or -- worse -- that you never own or run your own company. Yikes.

    This isn't about needing to have anything. This is about wanting to be able to buy what you want to buy. No one is villifying Anet for wanting earn money. Doesn't mean people will be fine with them doing it with any means necessary. This is just a bad and manipulative business practice and calling them out for bad and manipulative business practice. It's as simple as that.

    No laws were broken, and I GUARANTEE YOU they are making more money this way. If you actually love this game, you would see that and be happy that this "manipulative" (lol) business practice is keeping the lights on. OK, so you don't get the shiny raptor you want, but maybe now you might get one more expansion before the game shutters.

    I don't want to go into another ROI business lesson in this thread, so suffice it to say... "making money" doesn't prevent companies from going under. They need to make "enough money" ... when budget time comes around and NCSoft has a few million to invest, it's looking more and more like that's going to be going to their mobile games which make about 400% more ROI than a huge, lunking, aging game like GW2. If I got 2 bucks to invest, why get a $.50 return when i could get a $4.25 return?? "Profitable" can still go under, guys.

    (p.s. calling someone bad and manipulative is kind of the exact definition of vilifying...)

    That all most sounds like emotional blackmail.
    Do you honestly think investing more heavily in the cash shop (by us and Anet) will make a meaningfull dent in the much larger and primarily korean mobile gaming market to make investment in Anet seem more appealing?
    Can you back up your doom and gloom projection for GW2's financial future?
    The 3Q financial report doesn't seem to show any signs of Anet going under anytime soon.
    Do you believe that profit margins in a competitive market and business ethics are mutually exclusive?
    And why do you take the stance that anyone that doesn't agree with you has no experience in either the corporate world and/or running a successful business when some of us do? (I assume I'm not the only one)

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.