Hej Hej folks out there

Too @ANet and all you others out there.I got A CRAZY idea this afternoon: what about we start A REAL DIALOGUE for a change?

For the sake of this post I name us 'The Players' and you 'The Devs' :)(I'm not a maniac thinking I could be the voice of all players, but I know the vast majority here really do care about GW with all of their heart, this is for you and me)

There's a lot of anger and whatnot happening in the last few days over Lootboxes and RNG, it all got stuffed in one mega-thread that no one can follow anymore, because a discussion is somewhat muted, the minute a dozen of other ppl are posting, too. And to be honest, it's all hard to follow and answer even lightly for you Devs, too. Isn't it?But there is more, and to some degree I feel it is something that's deep down in all of us players and it all EXPLODED when you threw what a lot of us felt as a curveball with the mount-skins.

I can honestly call myself a veteran when it comes to gaming, whether it be tabletops, pen & paper, arcades, consoles or whatever comes the way. Not often – maybe Super Mario World – I can recall that there were games that I fell in love with, because I felt there was passion rooted deep down within and it oozed 'we The Devs are gamers like you and we love this sh... as much as you do!'. Guildwars to me, became one of these, because there's so much love for details, so much thought into HOW A RPG SHOULD BE DONE RIGHT, all the links into pop culture (whether it be StarWars or The Lion King), or that it's more than obvious that you are cat-ppl, and all the other 'Tip to the Hat' Moments to nerdy stuff we all like and brag about.It's all there. A fantasy world with enough 'reality' to feel evenly balanced with magic. The best thing: you made it a friendly world where the aspect of playing together and acting nice is honoured (next to the obvious killings of course, btw: since you are here, can we get an extra 18+ mode with gore? you can check the id's to enable it, if you like, but I really like to see some Joko minion spilling out the black stuff everywhere! ^^).

And all this passion is in us players, too, we recognise it and love you for it!But we are the game as much as you are. Without your passion GW wouldn't exist and we were stuck with a candy floss MMO I'm not naming here (because I hate it) and without us playing your game and hearing your (theme)songs, you were basically broke and some of you would have to work for this other franchise again!And we don't wanna see that happen, now do we? ;)

Ok. Let's cut to the chase:

This passion is what fuels the angry fire, burning bright as the sun here, on Reddit, on YouTube and everywhere else where Guildwars is discussed. Some are pro, some are against, but that's not the point. The point is TRANSPARENCY and HONESTY!A lot of us felt cheated because of what happened, because some of us live and breath the game, are deeply compassionate about it – a lot of us even use GW to skip the real world and for a little time aren't bothered by an angry boss, abusive husband, or to be free for a moment from their mental illness (like depression or pathological gambling) – and I know, the gaming world is now an industry and to some degree that was what made it flourish. Games became bigger and 'shinies' were suddenly all over the place. The Devs could hire good artists, designers, composers etc. etc., so due to that and some degree you can't tell all the nasty (or cool) details about what's in your basement, I know.But please be open to us, we don't bite – although apparently it may seem otherwise, now that the forks are lit – just ask us, some of us who are filling your awesome world with live DO have some knowledge, too, what could make this world even better. I know you are listening, because this forum is filled with honest critique, and desires, and ideas, and a lot of these were later implemented into the game and this is what makes GW so damn great.

So please ANet, it may seem unusual and of course, I can't speak for everyone in this forum or GW, but please tell us what's going on.What the game needs, what you the Devs need – as a recent example: why you wanna up the Lootbox-Game?I'm not asking for us to be a part of the design-team (though to be honest, I am a designer ;) ) and I don't wanna get spoilers like when you were 'secretly' developing the mounts for the PoF release, but just to be in an honest, transparent and open dialogue with us about where the game is heading, or should heading, or whatever... there are so many aspects where GW could prosper from that kind of exchange. We don't want to see GW becoming one of these soulless creatures out there, lurking for players money, just hiding in disguise as MMO.

Since this already IS this forum and you've already started to listen and reply (well, sometimes), hold twitch session and so on, why not open this up a little bit more to the base of players so accidents like the one now, aren't happening anymore in the future?!

Sincerely,

Kronos Dunstklinge

tl;dr: ANet, if you really care about us players please open up some subspace channels so we can talk honest, and open, and be transparent about what's going on with ANet & GW & The Players, thank you!

The communication issue is a side effect of any business larger than about 5 people. The RNG mounts decision wasn't made by one person, and cannot be unmade by one person. With the possible, and not guaranteed, exception of the CEO, and the CEO isn't going to wade into the forums. So no one ready and able to speak with the community can actually make the changes the community requests, nor can they definitely reject those changes. The most they can do, which they have done, is try to assure us that they are, in fact, listening.

They also really can't be fully open in public. I'd bet one or two devs didn't like the RNG mounts idea any more than a lot of the community did, but for them to break ranks and say so in writing could have job and maybe career ending consequences. So they stay quiet. They might be pushing behind the scenes, using our commentary to bolster their position, but if that is the case they can't really tell us.

Once any decisions are made, they can state them and explain them, but that still isn't a dialog, there's no back and forth, give and take there. The best we can do is make sure we are heard.

I agree with your point OP. The issue is that you can't trust what ArenaNet says a lot of the time. They say one thing and do another. Look at guild missions. They said they were implementing it as a system and building on it over time. That never happened. How many "systems" has that happened with? So many. So many things in this game get implemented and talked about as the future and then nothing ever happens with it because they move on to the next "system" to implement.

@Erulogos.2591 said:The RNG mounts decision wasn't made by one person, and cannot be unmade by one person. With the possible, and not guaranteed, exception of the CEO, and the CEO isn't going to wade into the forums. So no one ready and

Mike O'Brien did participate in Reddit discussions.

You guys forget one thing -- ArenaNet, first and foremost, has an obligation to investors and stakeholders. While we're the consumer base we only exist to drive profits. An argument can be made that, "if they upset the player base then there won't be profits" and that's a valid statement to make... but, they have to make profits and have an upward projection otherwise investments dry up. Few people invest in something that is projecting a loss.

I don't see why ArenaNet needs to communicate anything with us about their future plans. Market expansions and features because that makes sense... but pricing and BLTC strategies are something discussed in accounting offices and boardrooms. None of us are privy to that exclusive club.

So, no, they don't need a dialog with you. They need dialog with their investors and accountants. They need to find ways to keep the game profitable and alive while appeasing the playerbase just enough to keep the cash coming in to stay in the black. They owe you nothing. Stop acting like you're entitled to more than you pay for.

So rather than buying Gems people should be buying shares then.

420,000 kwn ($374.9 usd)Slumped a bit on the 9th not picked up.

@troops.8276 said:So rather than buying Gems people should be buying shares then.

If I could turn my shares into gold... I'd already have enough to vote against mount gambling.

But... Yes, more communication makes sense.

But its an upward trend:2015 - 200-000 krw ($178.5 USD)2017 - 475,00 krw at peak ($425 USD)

This is for NCsoft Corp.

I'm pretty sure by now, if you've been around long enough you know the ArenaNet communication method is to not talk about anything until it's ready, this won't change just because of a bunch of people crying about mount skins.

@Dropdown.7460 said:This is long, but it will be the only response I leave.

The Gem Store Conundrum

This is about more than Mount Skins and Black Lion Chests. As it stands currently, Guild Wars 2 "end game progression" is the gem store. Outside of raids, what do people focus on? Legendary armor? Aside from the raiding set, it doesn't look legendary. Legendary weapons? You can buy them on the TP (set 2 requires some leg work, but nothing absurdly difficult, just more gold). What if Frodo went to the Market and simply bought Sting and his Elven Chainmail there? I bet Lord of the Rings would have felt less epic. Skins? Gotta buy those now, as in-game choices are becoming slimmer. Mount skins? Only the base; can't earn any skins in-game forcing us to buy them on the Gem Store.

Was this the intention? To make players work toward being able to afford things in the gem store? What is there left to do when "winning" the game is pulling out your credit card?

The "Mobile" Game Industry

This has become a bigger issue over time and the Mount Skin "license" was the tipping point. The game industry is projected to make $25b in revenue in 2017 - and that's just in the US. Looking at the top 25 publishers in 2017, NCSoft made the list at #23. The Gem Store is becoming more prominent and giving off a mobile free-to-play vibe as times goes on. It's no surprise given that mobile games grossed over $41b in 2016. What's a poor publisher to do? May as well act savvy and jump on that groovy gravy train.

If this is the direction Guild Wars 2 is headed, I want no part of it. I don't play mobile games for a reason and I certainly don't want to see the Guild Wars franchise become a mobile-like game (mobile-lite? I hope I didn't just invent a new term...). As players, we don't get to see your intent, only the implementation. What we saw was obvious: lootbox reveal during a time when lootboxes are all over the media and the big publisher craze. I get it, I really do -- companies want to make money, lots and lots of money, for their investors. Should this always be done at the expense of the customer? I already know what the US courts think.

Base Content

What upsets me about these new skins is it feels like were given the worst, stripped down version of mounts and (other items) in-game. It feels like your PoF customers don't deserve these skins without spending the extra money. Being realistic, how many people in-game (%) can actually afford the 30-license set with in-game gold (not converted from gems) only? Players can't even earn a single other skin in-game.

It's Just Cosmetic

It's also in-game content that is vastly superior in quality than what we can find in game, with more customization options - exactly what players want. Is something vastly superior that's highly desired by every single player something that can be considered "alternative"? One of the main staples of RPGs is creating and equipping appropriate armor/fashion for their character. You don't even see your character in Skyrim or Fallout 4 and yet it's important to wear cool things.

Just Business

What you told players is this:We spent a good deal of time creating skins for these mounts and decided to give you the most basic, boring versions that can be found, earned, or otherwise procured in game. You'll have to pay for the "Premium" models. Oh, and if you want them all (or the assurance you'll get the one you want), be prepared to spend $140 (Stables + Forged Jackal).

The Gem Store has taken over the game. Does Anet / NCSoft really think they'll have better player retention with this model? When the bubble bursts, or when the "whales" and "dolphins" (are we really seen as just livestock/animal wallets...?) get bored and move on to other games? Your "main source of game income" is gone. To top it off, you've already alienated your smaller, but consistent stream of revenue from players who left due to tossing out the fishing rods in favor of harpoons.

Official Response

• At a time when there’s a lot of debate about random boxes in gaming, we should have anticipated that a new system with a random element would cause alarm.

• We released mount skins with three different purchase models, but with the majority of skins released so far through the Adoption License. It’s easy to perceive this as intentionally channeling you toward randomization.

• The Adoption License is a large set at 30 skins. We stand by the work our artists put into each skin, but it’s understandable to see this as pushing down the odds of acquiring any one skin, and to worry that we might add more skins to lower the chances further.

Here are some of the benefits we had in mind when designing the Mount Adoption License:

• You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price.

• It uses a progressive mechanic. Every license gives you a new skin to use and increases the odds of acquiring any remaining skins.

• You’ve requested variety, and this is a way to support variety. Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins. Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin.

Microtransactions can be polarizing, and we’ve received both positive and negative feedback on the license.

We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made, but I want to confirm to you that our next planned mount skin releases will focus on individual sales like the Reforged Warhound and bundles like the Spooky Mounts Pack. We will not add any skins to the currently available Adoption License, thus not pushing down the odds of acquiring any one skin in that set.

True, this is a long text (from 'Were you satisfied with ArenaNet's answer about the Mount Adoption Licenses?'). But far more satisfying then the answer ANet gave us (and the text is citing).

It's been days this thing is rolling through Reddit, YouTube, here and everywhere.But right now, there is only room here in this forum 'to let off some steam' in some threads. Nothing else.Which indeed feels like: filling a box with all the anger and whatnot, and then let it disappear like nothing ever happened. Next to the only real answer ANet gave us, this is very unsatisfactory, to be honest.

There is NONE evident that there is only the slightest intention to open up to the community, us players... your reason why you still get pay checks ANet!I WANT to have a dialogue, I WANT to believe this is still the 'gamers for gamer - game' it's supposed to be. But with the silence on this, I slowly but surely swing by the comments that say, that this is just the beginning of the end: No real in-game rewards for achieving hard goals anymore, if you really wanna have some fancy, buckle up your bag of gold and gamble on!

This has become more than just a discussion about RNG/Lootbox scams, this is about the roots of gaming and respect for the players (or should we just be renamed: customers?!).

What makes you think that Anet owes you a discussion? Buying a $50.00 product doesn't entitle you to a lifetime relationship. Anet is not a cheap hooker, stop treating Anet like they are. Just because Anet offers a new product people think it's their job to berate them. So many people on this forum are just rude, nasty and way beyond what is normally considered civilized behavior. It's disgusting.

DarcShriek:

In no way I said that ANet OWED me a discussion. Though to be fair, the kind of behaviour asks for a discussion!

And to be honest, by now (in my case) it's a lot more money then just 50 bucks dude. Count in all the deluxe-editions, and my love for the artists, so I really don't mind spending on action figures, or cool extra-stuff added to the game. But it's not about the money – well, it is, that's the whole point of the debate, but not THIS money – it's about the exploitation of us players. We're all ppl, we're all filling this game with our passion and love for GW and gaming in the first place.It is about how we are treated. This isn't some soulless microwave we're talking about, this is something where you spend a good amount of your lifetime on.

And without players a game wouldn't exist. It would starve on some old hard drive and collecting bit-dust.So THIS is why there should be interaction and talks.

@Matick.4132 said:

And to be honest, by now (in my case) it's a lot more money then just 50 bucks dude.

My Audi costs a lot more than $50, but they don't call me up to discuss their sales strategy for the new model. At best I get a brochure in the mail :)

One day games will just be games, not services that companies feel the need to micromanage harder than the government does.

@costepj.5120 said:

My Audi costs a lot more than $50, but they don't call me up to discuss their sales strategy for the new model. At best I get a brochure in the mail :)

No. But if Audi would screw around with your actual car, you would. You'd be outraged if they threw in a RNG system with your next inspection, so you can't drive without punching the slot machine first. ;)

@Matick.4132 said:

@costepj.5120 said:

My Audi costs a lot more than $50, but they don't call me up to discuss their sales strategy for the new model. At best I get a brochure in the mail :)

But ... I wouldn't be outraged if that RNG system was completely optional and I never had to use it if I didn't want to. I had a multitronic gearbox in my last car that allowed me to override the automatic transmission. I never used it once in five years.

@Matick.4132 said:

@costepj.5120 said:

My Audi costs a lot more than $50, but they don't call me up to discuss their sales strategy for the new model. At best I get a brochure in the mail :)

But that's not what happened with GW2. GW2 offered you the option to buy an RNG system for your car and people are throwing a fit about it. You are grossly misrepresenting the mount adoption system. Anet is not forcing you to buy it and it is not affecting the car's performance. If Audi offered you and unidentified paint job for $1000 you would probably just say no thanks. You wouldn't rant about how Audi needs to start a dialog with you about future marketing. If you want someone to talk to, make a friend.

Yes because calling out the Dev's always gets you the wanted reaction.

@ OP : I do believe that you have the best intentions in the word and that you truly believe what you're saying. But it's just not how things work. Communication is not an easy task, and there are numerous example of dialogues that have gone wrong because, frankly, the number of variable that are involved is insane. Miscommunication, disappointment, trust issues are all common phenomenons happening between just two individuals, and they are more and more likely to happen the more individuals are part of the discussion. Don't you know the saying? Between what I think I'm saying, what I'm actually saying, what you're hearing, and what you think you're hearing...how can we understand each other? More communication is not always preferable. Myself, I prefer actions, aka, what is actually happening. It's often more accurate that any speech of any length.

Honestly, discussions have as many downsides as upsides : they take time and effort that could be directed elsewhere, will often raise polarizing reactions based upon little (or even nothing), and usually end up distorting our feelings about what the current situation really is.

Are they useful? Sure! But the truth is people rely on them too much instead of appreciating what they currently have, or taking measures to appreciate what their current situation is. Dabbling in the past and the future can be fun, and even necessary. But it will never replace enjoying the present.

@Matick.4132 said:

@costepj.5120 said:

My Audi costs a lot more than $50, but they don't call me up to discuss their sales strategy for the new model. At best I get a brochure in the mail :)

And yet my game continues to function just fine...

The idea that a business is there only to make money and that as long as it makes money everything and anything is ok... is wrong. We are sadly forgetting society comes before profit, and money is nothing but a tool to make the interchange of goods and services easier. Business are the powerful constructs that promotes diversity of interchange (physical things, work, knowledge, entertainment, art) and make the interchange sustainable.But what is the purpose of such interchange? The common welfare. Survival, safety, comfort, happiness, self-fulfilment. For people.

Of course, games aren't basic needs. Most of us have somewhat broke through the mere survival into a world were virtual role-playing experiences have authentic, human value. We pursue happiness, and games are one of our ways to achieve it. We are lucky, yes, but the main point remains there anyway.

Do you think people felt this strong disgust for schemes just because they want to save money? Or because they hate when business make money? No. This instinctive rejection comes from the unconscious but clear notion that there has been a betrayal. That one side is not fulfilling its part of the agreement.

Its easy to blindly say "it's just business". Well, it isn't. The moment a business lost sight of the people to focus only on the money, that business has lost the way. It no longer serves its basic, real purpose: to make society better.

@"Iason Evan.3806" said:I agree with your point OP. The issue is that you can't trust what ArenaNet says a lot of the time. They say one thing and do another. Look at guild missions. They said they were implementing it as a system and building on it over time. That never happened. How many "systems" has that happened with? So many. So many things in this game get implemented and talked about as the future and then nothing ever happens with it because they move on to the next "system" to implement.

That doesn't actually have the implications you think it does. Anet very clearly use a metrics driven design process, and is not intentionally spending its time thinking up ideas that they can purposefully abandon shortly after starting, just to spite the player base. I'd only give that credit to 2 Dev teams, and neither of those are with ArenaNet.

The reason they keep flip flopping with implementations is due to needing short term solutions to long term problems. Using this very thread discussion as an example, they need to take a long redesign pass for a Core game play mechanic to full resolve the problem at its fundamental level. But to do so takes time, and a total gutting of the existing model in order to replace it with a different one...... not only is that difficult to justify in its own right, they also need compelling evidence to back up this notion that a new system will do better then the current system. While some like to claim "they had 5 years to fix this", the reality is those 5 years weren't focused on a paradigm shift in design of a fundamental mechanic, that when altered in any significant way disrupts the the underlying flow the entire game...... But no, we'll just go with "they've had a guy locked in a room for 5 years and he couldn't figure it out".

And thats not even beginning to explain this idea to a project manager, who then has to explain this to an executive, who then has to discuss it with an accountant, to which the accountant will ask "how much will it cost? what revenue streams will it disable? and what is the projected gains?". He'll then crunch some numbers, and determine if the number that represents "money we'll make" is significantly higher then "money we won't make" based on the course of action. To which the whole discussion gets thrown out once the Executive realizes this could destabilize the game completely if it fails, and potentially sink the whole produce line as a result. If that were the case, they'd rather just leave the game in maintenance mode, milk it for whatever money is left in the player base, and sink investment into a new title that doesn't have all this complicated community stigma to deal with, and then pitch it as the solution we've all wanted....... Thats when Guildwars 3 begins production.

@Ardid.7203 said:The idea that a business is there only to make money and that as long as it makes money everything and anything is ok... is wrong. We are sadly forgetting society comes before profit, and money is nothing but a tool to make the interchange of goods and services easier. Business are the powerful constructs that promotes diversity of interchange (physical things, work, knowledge, entertainment, art) and make the interchange sustainable.But what is the purpose of such interchange? The common welfare. Survival, safety, comfort, happiness, self-fulfilment. For people.

Of course, games aren't basic needs. Most of us have somewhat broke through the mere survival into a world were virtual role-playing experiences have authentic, human value. We pursue happiness, and games are one of our ways to achieve it. We are lucky, yes, but the main point remains there anyway.

Do you think people felt this strong disgust for schemes just because they want to save money? Or because they hate when business make money? No. This instinctive rejection comes from the unconscious but clear notion that there has been a betrayal. That one side is not fulfilling its part of the agreement.

Its easy to blindly say "it's just business". Well, it isn't. The moment a business lost sight of the people to focus only on the money, that business has lost the way. It no longer serves its basic, real purpose: to make society better.

You bought the right to play a game. You didn't buy a developer. If you want someone to talk to, make a friend.

@DarcShriek.5829 said:

You bought the right to play a game. You didn't buy a developer. If you want someone to talk to, make a friend.

What a derailing argument. Nobody said that, especially not me. Pls make the effort and read thoroughly, before randomly ranting stuff. ;)