@Lostariel.8470 said:
could the mounts work on a ticket system like Black Lion Claim tickets? like each Adoption License is a one ticket, and less popular mounts cost only one, with the most popular costing three. This would be a way to allow players a choice rather than an RNG but still necessitate multiple purchases for certain mounts that are more sought after.
idk just a thought, though I can respect your unwillingness to change the current system since some players have already spend $120 through the RNG system.
ugh, i dont buy blc keys and sometimes i earn keys doing map completions. in 1 year i have gotten 2 tickets and bought an abaddon axe. putting mount skins in this system is the same as mount licenses are now.
Thank you for the response. I am disappointed, but accept that this is your stance. It was mentioned, but since this is the business model you are going with, I'd love to see the adoption packs broken down by specific mounts at the very least.
I'm cool with everything that was said but this part:
"You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price."
I mean, $5 for a single mount skin is not that fantastic of a deal. Asking $20 for the Jackal skin was WAY overpriced. A single mount skin should never be anywhere near the cost of a single glider/back piece skin. Ever.
I think $2.50 would be okay for a non super special regular mount skin. But also I feel I probably wouldn't buy any individual mount skins. I like the packages. I am looking forward to the inevitable Wintersday Mount skins.
It's for cosmetic items. GW2 one of the few games that doesn't have p2w items. Yes, they are expensive and a gamble, but it's our choice. Haven't bought any though.
Echoing what others have said, I hope that the 2000 gem price for single skins is also not something that continues. A skin that costs almost as much as an expansion is hardly a "micro"transaction.
Glad to hear we're not gonna see another mess like that, but I still don't see the point of having the skins not beeing tradable?
What are we supposed to do with 10 Skins per Mount if we only wanted 1 out of 30 to begin with? Why not let us sell them (or buy the ones we want from other players)?
As the old worlds fall behind
Our spirit reaches wide
With no fear breathing new life
Awaken from the dark dark slumber
Wintersun - Awaken from the dark slumber (Spring) - Part II The Awakening
The fundamental question you need to answer is "Why use a lootbox/randomization style mechanic instead of directly selling the skins"? If your answer has anything to do with making more money by exploiting the gambling urges of players, or obscuring the direct market value of an individual skin, then you lose. You have to justify this in terms of the benefits it brings the game and the players over directly selling the skins.
None of the justifications in your OP address this. You could give a discount on skins by selling bundles of them directly, which would be just as, if not more, beneficial and fair to the player, since anyone who only cares about getting the discount on the randomization is clearly aiming to collect a lot of skins. Anyone who wants a particular skin is screwed, however.
Loot boxes must always be justified in opposition to other microtransaction systems, not in opposition to no microtransaction system. Unless you have a really good pro-consumer, pro-game-mechanic, diegetic reason to have a random mount mount license in the game then I will remain vehemently opposed to the introduction of these licenses.
Disappointing that the license isn't being split into two boxes because the positive feedback was too much, but I guess I was in the group of people not planning on buying it anyway.
The Adoption License is a large set at 30 skins [...] 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.
It's a fact that having a random pull form a bundle of 30 is pushing down the odds of getting one specific skin. You literally can't see this any other way, because this is how it works.
@Mike O Brien.4613 said:
[...] our next planned mount skin releases will focus on individual sales like the Reforged Warhound and bundles like the Spooky Mounts Pack.
Funny thing is that now I don't trust Arenanet about the mount skins ranymore. Here I just read: "The next time you'll have to pay 2000 gems for mount skins again, get used to it!" and "Well, we only promised for the next time!"
No affordable mount skins then. 2000 gems or rng. That will be our choices.
Okay, I get it, I'll get something else than gem cards for Christmas.
They can't change the boxes now, out in the wild any change would make them liable for legal action. They could back into the grey area of thier special currency, 'gems' already being purchased for legal ground, but that would sour the absolute hell out of this community. The best thing they can do is take the punch to the chin and fix future en-devours... Otherwise they might have a lawsuit on their hands from players who've already purchased the packs that were then changed.
@Skye.1572 said:
"We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made" - ArenaNet PR
Oh, like they did with Town Clothes? Remember when they took out an entire feature and replaced it with something that made our purchases completely worthless? They took out all the mix and match customization and dying of them and gave us clothing tonics of fixed outfits and colors to replace the items. They gave us the option of gem refunds for our investment they invalidated if we wanted that instead of the tonics. So.... why can't they do that here? I know why. It's because they want us to gamble for the ones we want, or fork over the $120 to get all of them. It's not our investment they're worried about, it's theirs.
It's hard to take this halfhearted PR jargon seriously after reading that line.
They are actually making all town clothes into outfits, see here under Outfits (retrofitted town clothes).
Suggestion. In the future let it roll 3-4 mount skins we haven’t already unlocked (from entire pool) and let us select between them to reduce the RNG, or at least increase the likelihood of getting what you want.
On the other hand you could also have contracts that roll for skins of a specific mount.
2000 for ONE mount is way to much, 1000 is pushing it but would probably be fair, 800 would be ideal. As nice as it is, it has to be a bit more than what we got to justify that price. Maybe multi slot would have been received better? Like raptor + jackal despite same same skin?
I mean that the initial 30 skins must be given for lost, you should think this as a pyramid and see that every time the cost to get the desired skin is more expensive ... In the end loses the consumer in this strategy. Picture a closed box where inside there are 29 blue balls and 1 red, for each attempt you must spend 5 dollars, then your first 10 attempts will only come out blue, and in the attempt 11 you will finally get the red one, on the one hand you will be happy, but for the other unfortunate for having spent more than 55 dollars. I raise this because not all their skins are "attractive" and the consumer, in this case, go for the striking ...
Well, your attention is appreciated.
PS: 25 dollars for a skin, you should think better before that, even a DLC of any game today comes out cheaper ...
Mikey my boy all you had to do was add mount skins(and glider skins imo) into IN-GAME REWARDS THROUGH CONTENT and this would be a non-issue. But as usual you're out of touch. Literally could have avoided this by being video game developers and not pixel artists.
You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price.
I find this to be quite deceptive. With the Halloween mount skins you set an expectation of price to be 320 gems per skin, while 400 gems for the Adoption License is not too far off, the 2000 gems for the Reforged jackal skin definitely is. And you are asking the community to believe that the single model swap for this one mount is worth twice what the 10 models for the Wedding Attire are priced at. And I am flabbergasted that no one is seeing this incongruity.
You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price.
Except that we don't get the substantial discount since we can't actually buy them individually, in fact these cost more than an individual price because there's an expected value of 6k gems if you want a single individual skin given that you'd have to roll on average 15 times to get the one you want
"We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made"
Seriously, that's your excuse to not change anything, your "care" for the players investment lol
"our next planned mount skin releases will focus on individual sales like the Reforged Warhound and bundles like the Spooky Mounts Pack"
do you mean individual skins at ~25$ each like the Warhound and bundles at 2000 gems ?
how about INDIVIDUAL skins at reasonable prices like the glider skins.
@Danikat.8537 said:
Well...it's certainly not the answer I was hoping for (since I do like quite a few of these skins), but it's better than nothing. I'll keep my fingers crossed for the next batch.
Good to hear something and knowing it's meant as a progression of sorts makes it more palatable. It's a relief to know the path ahead most of all. Thanks.
Edit: If this thread is being monitored at all I'd like to suggest you please look into including some skins as game rewards, they don't even have to be flashy but it would help a lot.
The main takeaway is that A.net needs to be more agile in responding to brewing storms. Taking the time to explain it from their side of things and their thought processes and how they see something can go a long way in calming anger.
offer a "choice at adoption" license at 4x the cost. People will buy it and then they have a choice for both random chance and mount selection, with mount selection being obviously more expensive and therefore "getting less value out of your gems," but at least being guaranteed what they want.
@Esterie.7409 said:
Echoing what others have said, I hope that the 2000 gem price for single skins is also not something that continues. A skin that costs almost as much as an expansion is hardly a "micro"transaction.
Yeah, it's a transaction. Nothing "micro" about it.
So, ArenaNet have done this, it sounds like they won't change it (or at least won't change it in a way to invalidate what people already have) and I don't see anything here to indicate that this random lootbox method definitely won't be used in the future, just not for mount skins. At the moment, well, this is... news but neither all that good nor bad.
Oh and, if your idea of a reasonable price for a skin is €25, well, that's just crazy.
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.
1) These three arguments are all actually the SAME argument, reworded. Come now.
2) YOU set the individual purchase price. So saying these skins are cheaper than they would be as individual purchases, as a reason to purchase, is disingenuous when you could, you know, set their individual prices lower. It's not like this is a real world item where supply/packing/distribution actually affect the retail value.
3) It's really not a lower price per skin because it's RANDOM. Say someone wants one of the less-flashy raptor skins. They might pay 400 gems to get it. They might pay 12000 gems to get it. You're not suiting a wide range of player tastes if everyone has to gamble to get the ones they want. You're holding people's tastes for ransom.
Be honest, Mo. None of these "benefits" are actually beneficial to us. They're beneficial for gem sales. Period.
Simply said, none of my guild will be buying into this. If I had a chance to return the two I have ( and don't want) , I would . But you have my money now so .. screwed.
As it is now unless you change this , You will not .. not ...see another dime from me or my team, I think I was a pretty average funder of GW2 over the years.
You have decided not to make changes in the current system. as such I have made changes to my future purchasing , Not .. a .. dime., till you unwind this.
we cannot let this become a norm. You can have some money, or no money.
@Game of Bones.8975 said:
What about a "golden adoption ticket" that allows a person to select the specific skin they are looking for?
I haven't unlocked the griffon yet so I'm also wondering if the adoption works on mount skins that aren't available to you yet? If you don't have the jackal will you still receive jackal skins? or reroll for one of the other three you have available to you?
I received a griffon skin that I can't use, since I don't have a griffin.
I tested my luck because I wanted the bunny skin with the cotton tail and wasn't going to spend $150 canadian to get it. Perhaps I bought a license because I wanted to be angry.
Click on your name up top. Click the little icon with the down arrow for preferences. Click Signature Settings to the right.
Thanks for the response Mo, it's a shame you're not willing to let people buy the skins individually but good to know you're drawing a line under the RNG method of acquisition. To echo what others have said though, 2k gems I believe is far too much for a single mount skin, especially when you consider the Spooky Mounts Pack and how much it equates to in real-life money, so I hope this is taken into consideration going forward.
I'd also like to ask that you consider adding mount skins in as something earnable through in-game acquisition (achievements, collections etc). I appreciate this will always be the minority of skins due to your payment model, but I really do believe it could add meaningful content for a lot of players and would be a good way of counter-balancing criticism that all/only the best skins are added to the gem store.
While im still not happy about the exclusiveness of mount skins in the gemstore, I'm happy about MO's response. For future skins no more RNG, thats a step in the right direction. The price of those skins...lets hope they are more towards the price of the Halloween package.
Thanks for the response. a little disappointed that the RNG wont be completely tosses out but understandable to not toss the people who did buy under the bus. Looking for ward to the next set of skins (that i hope are priced equivalently to what gliders costed). Would also have loved to see some skins added to the mount heart vendors (maybe like 2 alternative skins each for a large amount of karma/gold/trade_contracts)
Perhaps add the mount adoption as a drop in the black lion chests (as a common drop like the wardrobe unlock) so that the mount skins in the adoption licenses are more accessible to people who do not wish to buy (since keys can be acquired from various in game sources outside of the gemstore); alternatively, add it as a possible map completion reward (again like black lion keys) if you have PoF. i feel these would help the players feel they are progressing with their customization options.
@Mike O Brien.4613 said:
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.
I'm not so sure about that one. A pack consisting on nothing but making the standard skins fully dyable, with all four channels available, would likely sell very well. The "basic" skin the mounts come with aren't "the bland skins"; they are the first we see the mounts with, and I wouldn't be surprised if people get attached to them. In fact, I'm strongly hoping the future packs will have something simple like that, instead of skins that make big changes on how the mounts look (like the spooky mounts or the neon mounts).
You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price.
I'd dispute this point. The Halloween skins came out at a price of 1600 gems for 5 skins, one per mount. These were stated as having a 20% discount due to being a bundle, so would have been 2000 gems normally. Thus, they would have had a price of 400 gems per skin, which is the exact same price that is being charged for the random skins from the adoption licenses. This alone is the big reason I'm not willing to buy any of the licenses. If the price were lowered to ~200 gems to account for the RNG factor OR if we were allowed to select a mount of our choice for 400 gems (even up to 600-800 for the ones which use particle effects or the like), then I would be willing to drop $20 or more on getting some cool new skins. After all, I bought the Halloween mounts pack with no qualms about the price. But in its current state, I will not be purchasing any of the mount adoption licenses. Thanks for your time.
You have valid concerns about random boxes. We hoped that the design of the Mount Adoption License would be reassuring. In this case, we made some missteps:
...
Microtransactions can be polarizing
...
~ MO
So pretty much a whole lot of text to reassure us that you intend to continue to use bad practices to get our money?
We all understand the need for ArenaNet to create GemStore content that we as a consumer will part with our hard earned cash to obtain. Most all of us are not only willing to support the efforts of the developers but actually look forward to doing so. However, it is not simply because there is a lot of negative publicity about loot boxes that this is blowing up. Its because as an MMO player the ONLY RNG we want is from actual loot that drops (and honestly most of us want a whole lot less of that as it is). Its because you chose to introduce this right after one of the major game holidays that usually has a lot of cash shop push in it. Its because you chose to introduce this with a 25$ skin for a single mount. Its because you failed to prepare the community for the pricing and method for these skins. In the past we have had glider skins. These ranged from single "general" skins of 300-400gems (3-5$) to backpack/glider combos that were between 700-1000gems (8-13$). Buy dropping skins in an RNG manner at the same pricepoint as a non RNG glider skin AND pricing a single skin at 2000gems, you have outpriced and outraged a large portion of your user base.
I do not know the financial logistics of it all. I know you probably made a large deal of money on Tuesday when this all came down. But I do know that by outraging those that refused to purchase, and enraging those that did feel the need to pay for the RNG only to be extremely disappointed, you have lowered your long term bottom line.
Well, ArenaNet, I have already bought my 30 pack and I'm enjoying my mount skins just like I've enjoyed this game. I personally don't mind putting in an investment for things that I enjoy and if my little $120 helps to keep the lights on for another year so you guys can continue to keep this game going then so be it. I'm looking forward to seeing more skins and enjoying more future content. Tell your artists they did a great job with a lot of the skins in my opinion, another reason why I decided to go ahead and get them all. Despite what others in the community think or say, I think you guys are doing a great job with what you have so keep up the strong work.
@Mike O Brien.4613 said:
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.
The problem is, none of those are good methods. You've done three methods so far - one bundle, one exorbitantly priced, and one RNG lootbox. of these, the reforged warhound is the best in theory - you're providing an item and charging for that item alone. That the price is nearly that of the expansion is another matter.
the biggest issue I see with the gemstore is that you don't give the impression of respecting your customers. several new items are designed into tricking people into buying things they don't want in order to get things they do want. My advice, and my hope is that you'll do the following:
RNG boxes should never be the only option to get an item. either have the RNG version be a cheaper but random option, or make the drops tradeable so that people can buy from each other.
Bundles should be a discount, not a necessity. When you put things in as bundles only, you're basically telling everyone who only wants part of the bundle to buy it all or buy nothing. this is pretty insulting to people who only want parts of the bundle, and you're going to lose a lot of sales when people choose nothing in response.
Whenever you have an item that is gem store only, don't make it hard for players to get it. it's already a microtransaction - don't put up unnecessary barriers.
I'd hold up the foefire gear as an example of gem-store done right. I liked the gloves, but not the shoulders. Thankfully, I was able to buy just the gloves. Had I wanted both, I could've bought the bundle and saved money, but since I didn't want the shoulders, I wasn't forced into paying for them. This is a good design, and what should be available more often.
As a counterpoint - the Infinite Use Unbound Magic Gathering Tools. I already had a set of infinite use gathering tools, and the fact that I couldn't trade in or otherwise recycle them was a major disincentive to buying the unbound tools. even so, I would've bought the sickle or logging axe, had they been available separately. However, this wasn't an option. You had a product I wanted, that I was willing to buy. However, due to the barriers you put between me and that product, the blatant and insulting attempt to force me to buy things I didn't want, I didn't buy anything.
I think your gemstore revenue would increase, perhaps significantly, if you just let people buy what they want. Bundles, RNG, and seasonal rotation are disincentives, and leave customers not buying and not happy.
and I feel this response, which feels rather tepid in the situation, will not only fail to satisfy the community, but will contribute to an increased feeling of resentment and discontent towards both Anet and the gemstore, which will only worsen the next such controversy. I truly worry that you're just sowing the seeds for further problems.
MICRO TRANSACTION........ are you kitten kidding me? full games cost 30-60 dollars and you want 25 dollars a skin as a MICRO TRANSACTION???? I'm a whale... ive spent thousands of dollars on this game over the years here.... Thanks for kitten me in the kitten. This whale is dead to you.
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.
But you can't "suit player tastes" by creating a system that actively prohibits player choice.. Leave the 400 gem random item, but please: give us a 600 gem option to choose the skins we want.
The 2000 gem War forged Mount skin is over priced and will not buy any single skin for that price. The Spooky bundle was worth it.
Still wish the adoption tickets would only unlock mounts that you currently have unlocked. Getting 2 griffins skins and not even owning the griffin is very very disheartening
@blambidy.3216 said:
Honestly idk why people complain about the mount skins. I did wish would could colorize the mount without skins with our own dye but let's stick to topic. First of all gems can be earned so it's ok. What is the difference in pricing for regular skins, or gliders? Nothing really actually 400 gems is a good price. Some gliders are 700 gems a piece. So idk why people are mad. How come people are mad about this but not the dyes that are 125 gems a piece? Same way. You buy it, and get a random dye. When you buy it and get a random skin.
I do like the fact that even though they are random you will never get a duplicate. So basically it's honestly like buying a Yu-Gi-Oh booster pack. Or Pokemon booster pack or magic. But the better part is no duplicates.
400 is a reasonable price for the mount adoption. So basically buy one, get a random mount skin. And you can 1 out of 30 of the right one. Later on the ratio diminishes till you get the right one you want. It's not bad. Just different.
I wish they did that for gilder's. Made a butt load of gliders. Pay the same price for each and get 1 random glider.
The problem here in relation to gliders is that we can actually get the glider we want without hoping rng doesn't screw us over (a good portion of players, including me, have stated we would be happy to buy the skins at twice the price and skip the rng). In relation to dyes, people not comfortable with the risk can pay a higher price to get it off the tp. Neither of these options is available with the mount adoption in its current state.
The 2 solutions are terrible, 2000 gems for a single skin is extremely overpriced, a 2000 bundle where you have to buy several skins you don't want in order to get the 1-2 you want is almost as bad as your current adoption licenses.
Gliders are 400-500 gems, why can't individual skins be priced that way too?
Better than I expected. I knew nothing could be done about the current license situation without just upsetting another group...but at least in the future we might avoid this. Thumbs up...gold star...so on and so on.
Oh and maybe consider giving us some in-game rewards to work towards. I assuredly get the point of the gem store but to reiterate a point I have made before...if everything is bought and nothing is earned...what are we playing for? And PoF while overall good...feels really lacking in the long term goals department.
Not to white knight ANET in this specific case but I feel like the reaction about all of this is overblown.
I initially thought, while being uninformed, that mount skins would be as random as black lion weapon skins (available through tickets).
But later I found out that you are guaranteed a mount skin, and to be honest, at least half of the skins are pretty kitten decent. Let's be frank here for a second. If you were allowed to specifically buy 1 skin, even if it was at 1k gems. Would you even consider buying more than 1 skin? or more than 1 per mount? ANET needs to make money, and while this method seems sort of scumbag-ish, it's a decent one. It would be nothing but starbound and fiery mount skins everywhere. Who would even consider spending any gems / usd on the more 'normal' skins of the bunch?
Still I would have introduced, if it was up to me, more options in the bundles. Leave some randomization so that people are 'forced' to buy more than one, to get the one they want, but not something as strict as 1 out of 30. That's a 3.33% chance of getting the one you specifically want.
I see the mount adoption license identical to those "mystery [item]" that other games have. This option is obviously cheaper than the traditional not-randomized one, and is a fair gamble, as long as there are more direct ways of getting that one skin you want, even if it means paying more. What I would have introduced is a mount-specific license, much like unidentified [color] dyes, that always give you a dye from a certain color spectrum, RNG is drastically reduced like this! Or perhaps a full bundle of skins for a specific mount (instead of being forced to buy all of them). Maybe people really like the Jackal, or Griffon, so instead of buying the 9600 gems pack, they'd pay 3000 for a full set of a certain mount? Surely some people would do that over paying 400 over and over just to get skimmer skins or 9600 to get a ton of skins they don't really care about.
All in all, for a purely cosmetic item, I feel like the outrage was a little unwarranted. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to buy these skins, and if you get one of the less glittery ones, who cares? Rep it up, be unique.
Never said I'm the best, but I believe I'm better than you.
@Mike O Brien.4613 said:
You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price.
That's the problem, there is no "individual purchase" for these skins. No one would have said anything if these skins were also available for direct purchase.
I forgot to ask: How long are the adoption licenses going to remain in the store? If you don't plan to change them, at least keep them long enough so people can slowly work towards them.
Comments
ugh, i dont buy blc keys and sometimes i earn keys doing map completions. in 1 year i have gotten 2 tickets and bought an abaddon axe. putting mount skins in this system is the same as mount licenses are now.
Thank you for the response. I am disappointed, but accept that this is your stance. It was mentioned, but since this is the business model you are going with, I'd love to see the adoption packs broken down by specific mounts at the very least.
I'm cool with everything that was said but this part:
"You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price."
I mean, $5 for a single mount skin is not that fantastic of a deal. Asking $20 for the Jackal skin was WAY overpriced. A single mount skin should never be anywhere near the cost of a single glider/back piece skin. Ever.
I think $2.50 would be okay for a non super special regular mount skin. But also I feel I probably wouldn't buy any individual mount skins. I like the packages. I am looking forward to the inevitable Wintersday Mount skins.
It's for cosmetic items. GW2 one of the few games that doesn't have p2w items. Yes, they are expensive and a gamble, but it's our choice. Haven't bought any though.
Thanks for listening and thanks for getting back to us before the weekend!
Echoing what others have said, I hope that the 2000 gem price for single skins is also not something that continues. A skin that costs almost as much as an expansion is hardly a "micro"transaction.
- — World Completion — -
16 // 35
Glad to hear we're not gonna see another mess like that, but I still don't see the point of having the skins not beeing tradable?
What are we supposed to do with 10 Skins per Mount if we only wanted 1 out of 30 to begin with? Why not let us sell them (or buy the ones we want from other players)?
Wintersun - Awaken from the dark slumber (Spring) - Part II The Awakening
The fundamental question you need to answer is "Why use a lootbox/randomization style mechanic instead of directly selling the skins"? If your answer has anything to do with making more money by exploiting the gambling urges of players, or obscuring the direct market value of an individual skin, then you lose. You have to justify this in terms of the benefits it brings the game and the players over directly selling the skins.
None of the justifications in your OP address this. You could give a discount on skins by selling bundles of them directly, which would be just as, if not more, beneficial and fair to the player, since anyone who only cares about getting the discount on the randomization is clearly aiming to collect a lot of skins. Anyone who wants a particular skin is screwed, however.
Loot boxes must always be justified in opposition to other microtransaction systems, not in opposition to no microtransaction system. Unless you have a really good pro-consumer, pro-game-mechanic, diegetic reason to have a random mount mount license in the game then I will remain vehemently opposed to the introduction of these licenses.
Disappointing that the license isn't being split into two boxes because the positive feedback was too much, but I guess I was in the group of people not planning on buying it anyway.
signature
It's a fact that having a random pull form a bundle of 30 is pushing down the odds of getting one specific skin. You literally can't see this any other way, because this is how it works.
Funny thing is that now I don't trust Arenanet about the mount skins ranymore. Here I just read: "The next time you'll have to pay 2000 gems for mount skins again, get used to it!" and "Well, we only promised for the next time!"
No affordable mount skins then. 2000 gems or rng. That will be our choices.
Okay, I get it, I'll get something else than gem cards for Christmas.
Thanks for clearing that up.
They can't change the boxes now, out in the wild any change would make them liable for legal action. They could back into the grey area of thier special currency, 'gems' already being purchased for legal ground, but that would sour the absolute hell out of this community. The best thing they can do is take the punch to the chin and fix future en-devours... Otherwise they might have a lawsuit on their hands from players who've already purchased the packs that were then changed.
They are actually making all town clothes into outfits, see here under Outfits (retrofitted town clothes).
35000 AP Reached! (7th April 2018)
Suggestion. In the future let it roll 3-4 mount skins we haven’t already unlocked (from entire pool) and let us select between them to reduce the RNG, or at least increase the likelihood of getting what you want.
On the other hand you could also have contracts that roll for skins of a specific mount.
2000 for ONE mount is way to much, 1000 is pushing it but would probably be fair, 800 would be ideal. As nice as it is, it has to be a bit more than what we got to justify that price. Maybe multi slot would have been received better? Like raptor + jackal despite same same skin?
I mean that the initial 30 skins must be given for lost, you should think this as a pyramid and see that every time the cost to get the desired skin is more expensive ... In the end loses the consumer in this strategy. Picture a closed box where inside there are 29 blue balls and 1 red, for each attempt you must spend 5 dollars, then your first 10 attempts will only come out blue, and in the attempt 11 you will finally get the red one, on the one hand you will be happy, but for the other unfortunate for having spent more than 55 dollars. I raise this because not all their skins are "attractive" and the consumer, in this case, go for the striking ...
Well, your attention is appreciated.
PS: 25 dollars for a skin, you should think better before that, even a DLC of any game today comes out cheaper ...
Mikey my boy all you had to do was add mount skins(and glider skins imo) into IN-GAME REWARDS THROUGH CONTENT and this would be a non-issue. But as usual you're out of touch. Literally could have avoided this by being video game developers and not pixel artists.
I find this to be quite deceptive. With the Halloween mount skins you set an expectation of price to be 320 gems per skin, while 400 gems for the Adoption License is not too far off, the 2000 gems for the Reforged jackal skin definitely is. And you are asking the community to believe that the single model swap for this one mount is worth twice what the 10 models for the Wedding Attire are priced at. And I am flabbergasted that no one is seeing this incongruity.
Except that we don't get the substantial discount since we can't actually buy them individually, in fact these cost more than an individual price because there's an expected value of 6k gems if you want a single individual skin given that you'd have to roll on average 15 times to get the one you want
"We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made"
Seriously, that's your excuse to not change anything, your "care" for the players investment lol
"our next planned mount skin releases will focus on individual sales like the Reforged Warhound and bundles like the Spooky Mounts Pack"
do you mean individual skins at ~25$ each like the Warhound and bundles at 2000 gems ?
how about INDIVIDUAL skins at reasonable prices like the glider skins.
mightyno9 was also better than nothing
Good to hear something and knowing it's meant as a progression of sorts makes it more palatable. It's a relief to know the path ahead most of all. Thanks.
Edit: If this thread is being monitored at all I'd like to suggest you please look into including some skins as game rewards, they don't even have to be flashy but it would help a lot.
The main takeaway is that A.net needs to be more agile in responding to brewing storms. Taking the time to explain it from their side of things and their thought processes and how they see something can go a long way in calming anger.
offer a "choice at adoption" license at 4x the cost. People will buy it and then they have a choice for both random chance and mount selection, with mount selection being obviously more expensive and therefore "getting less value out of your gems," but at least being guaranteed what they want.
Thanks for your feedback, we are not going to fix anything but we will try to not get caught next time. Enjoy your RNG boxes, there are here to stay.
Yeah, it's a transaction. Nothing "micro" about it.
So, ArenaNet have done this, it sounds like they won't change it (or at least won't change it in a way to invalidate what people already have) and I don't see anything here to indicate that this random lootbox method definitely won't be used in the future, just not for mount skins. At the moment, well, this is... news but neither all that good nor bad.
Oh and, if your idea of a reasonable price for a skin is €25, well, that's just crazy.
OK, Mike, I'll bite. What IS the individual purchase price of one mount skin that I actually want??? I'll wait. ~Jeopardy music plays~
1) These three arguments are all actually the SAME argument, reworded. Come now.
2) YOU set the individual purchase price. So saying these skins are cheaper than they would be as individual purchases, as a reason to purchase, is disingenuous when you could, you know, set their individual prices lower. It's not like this is a real world item where supply/packing/distribution actually affect the retail value.
3) It's really not a lower price per skin because it's RANDOM. Say someone wants one of the less-flashy raptor skins. They might pay 400 gems to get it. They might pay 12000 gems to get it. You're not suiting a wide range of player tastes if everyone has to gamble to get the ones they want. You're holding people's tastes for ransom.
Be honest, Mo. None of these "benefits" are actually beneficial to us. They're beneficial for gem sales. Period.
Can't say I'm surprised by the decision to not change the adoption licensing RNG.
Prince of Angels - Disney Prince with a Horrifying Power
Simply said, none of my guild will be buying into this. If I had a chance to return the two I have ( and don't want) , I would . But you have my money now so .. screwed.
As it is now unless you change this , You will not .. not ...see another dime from me or my team, I think I was a pretty average funder of GW2 over the years.
You have decided not to make changes in the current system. as such I have made changes to my future purchasing , Not .. a .. dime., till you unwind this.
we cannot let this become a norm. You can have some money, or no money.
I received a griffon skin that I can't use, since I don't have a griffin.
I tested my luck because I wanted the bunny skin with the cotton tail and wasn't going to spend $150 canadian to get it. Perhaps I bought a license because I wanted to be angry.
Click on your name up top. Click the little icon with the down arrow for preferences. Click Signature Settings to the right.
Thanks for the response Mo, it's a shame you're not willing to let people buy the skins individually but good to know you're drawing a line under the RNG method of acquisition. To echo what others have said though, 2k gems I believe is far too much for a single mount skin, especially when you consider the Spooky Mounts Pack and how much it equates to in real-life money, so I hope this is taken into consideration going forward.
I'd also like to ask that you consider adding mount skins in as something earnable through in-game acquisition (achievements, collections etc). I appreciate this will always be the minority of skins due to your payment model, but I really do believe it could add meaningful content for a lot of players and would be a good way of counter-balancing criticism that all/only the best skins are added to the gem store.
While im still not happy about the exclusiveness of mount skins in the gemstore, I'm happy about MO's response. For future skins no more RNG, thats a step in the right direction. The price of those skins...lets hope they are more towards the price of the Halloween package.
Thanks for the response. a little disappointed that the RNG wont be completely tosses out but understandable to not toss the people who did buy under the bus. Looking for ward to the next set of skins (that i hope are priced equivalently to what gliders costed). Would also have loved to see some skins added to the mount heart vendors (maybe like 2 alternative skins each for a large amount of karma/gold/trade_contracts)
Perhaps add the mount adoption as a drop in the black lion chests (as a common drop like the wardrobe unlock) so that the mount skins in the adoption licenses are more accessible to people who do not wish to buy (since keys can be acquired from various in game sources outside of the gemstore); alternatively, add it as a possible map completion reward (again like black lion keys) if you have PoF. i feel these would help the players feel they are progressing with their customization options.
I'm not so sure about that one. A pack consisting on nothing but making the standard skins fully dyable, with all four channels available, would likely sell very well. The "basic" skin the mounts come with aren't "the bland skins"; they are the first we see the mounts with, and I wouldn't be surprised if people get attached to them. In fact, I'm strongly hoping the future packs will have something simple like that, instead of skins that make big changes on how the mounts look (like the spooky mounts or the neon mounts).
How about some anti eyes bleeding options? Here's the direct link to the concept.
Not a single gem ever again. Good job.
Well, thank you for considering our feedback and generously changing absolutely nothing about your monetization policy.
So will all new mount skins will be 2k gems each?
I'd dispute this point. The Halloween skins came out at a price of 1600 gems for 5 skins, one per mount. These were stated as having a 20% discount due to being a bundle, so would have been 2000 gems normally. Thus, they would have had a price of 400 gems per skin, which is the exact same price that is being charged for the random skins from the adoption licenses. This alone is the big reason I'm not willing to buy any of the licenses. If the price were lowered to ~200 gems to account for the RNG factor OR if we were allowed to select a mount of our choice for 400 gems (even up to 600-800 for the ones which use particle effects or the like), then I would be willing to drop $20 or more on getting some cool new skins. After all, I bought the Halloween mounts pack with no qualms about the price. But in its current state, I will not be purchasing any of the mount adoption licenses. Thanks for your time.
What about mount skins that you could get through in game achievments?
OMG Anet, not even ONE?
Come on...
...
...
...
So pretty much a whole lot of text to reassure us that you intend to continue to use bad practices to get our money?
We all understand the need for ArenaNet to create GemStore content that we as a consumer will part with our hard earned cash to obtain. Most all of us are not only willing to support the efforts of the developers but actually look forward to doing so. However, it is not simply because there is a lot of negative publicity about loot boxes that this is blowing up. Its because as an MMO player the ONLY RNG we want is from actual loot that drops (and honestly most of us want a whole lot less of that as it is). Its because you chose to introduce this right after one of the major game holidays that usually has a lot of cash shop push in it. Its because you chose to introduce this with a 25$ skin for a single mount. Its because you failed to prepare the community for the pricing and method for these skins. In the past we have had glider skins. These ranged from single "general" skins of 300-400gems (3-5$) to backpack/glider combos that were between 700-1000gems (8-13$). Buy dropping skins in an RNG manner at the same pricepoint as a non RNG glider skin AND pricing a single skin at 2000gems, you have outpriced and outraged a large portion of your user base.
I do not know the financial logistics of it all. I know you probably made a large deal of money on Tuesday when this all came down. But I do know that by outraging those that refused to purchase, and enraging those that did feel the need to pay for the RNG only to be extremely disappointed, you have lowered your long term bottom line.
Well, ArenaNet, I have already bought my 30 pack and I'm enjoying my mount skins just like I've enjoyed this game. I personally don't mind putting in an investment for things that I enjoy and if my little $120 helps to keep the lights on for another year so you guys can continue to keep this game going then so be it. I'm looking forward to seeing more skins and enjoying more future content. Tell your artists they did a great job with a lot of the skins in my opinion, another reason why I decided to go ahead and get them all. Despite what others in the community think or say, I think you guys are doing a great job with what you have so keep up the strong work.
The problem is, none of those are good methods. You've done three methods so far - one bundle, one exorbitantly priced, and one RNG lootbox. of these, the reforged warhound is the best in theory - you're providing an item and charging for that item alone. That the price is nearly that of the expansion is another matter.
the biggest issue I see with the gemstore is that you don't give the impression of respecting your customers. several new items are designed into tricking people into buying things they don't want in order to get things they do want. My advice, and my hope is that you'll do the following:
I'd hold up the foefire gear as an example of gem-store done right. I liked the gloves, but not the shoulders. Thankfully, I was able to buy just the gloves. Had I wanted both, I could've bought the bundle and saved money, but since I didn't want the shoulders, I wasn't forced into paying for them. This is a good design, and what should be available more often.
As a counterpoint - the Infinite Use Unbound Magic Gathering Tools. I already had a set of infinite use gathering tools, and the fact that I couldn't trade in or otherwise recycle them was a major disincentive to buying the unbound tools. even so, I would've bought the sickle or logging axe, had they been available separately. However, this wasn't an option. You had a product I wanted, that I was willing to buy. However, due to the barriers you put between me and that product, the blatant and insulting attempt to force me to buy things I didn't want, I didn't buy anything.
I think your gemstore revenue would increase, perhaps significantly, if you just let people buy what they want. Bundles, RNG, and seasonal rotation are disincentives, and leave customers not buying and not happy.
and I feel this response, which feels rather tepid in the situation, will not only fail to satisfy the community, but will contribute to an increased feeling of resentment and discontent towards both Anet and the gemstore, which will only worsen the next such controversy. I truly worry that you're just sowing the seeds for further problems.
MICRO TRANSACTION........ are you kitten kidding me? full games cost 30-60 dollars and you want 25 dollars a skin as a MICRO TRANSACTION???? I'm a whale... ive spent thousands of dollars on this game over the years here.... Thanks for kitten me in the kitten. This whale is dead to you.
But you can't "suit player tastes" by creating a system that actively prohibits player choice.. Leave the 400 gem random item, but please: give us a 600 gem option to choose the skins we want.
The 2000 gem War forged Mount skin is over priced and will not buy any single skin for that price. The Spooky bundle was worth it.
Still wish the adoption tickets would only unlock mounts that you currently have unlocked. Getting 2 griffins skins and not even owning the griffin is very very disheartening
The problem here in relation to gliders is that we can actually get the glider we want without hoping rng doesn't screw us over (a good portion of players, including me, have stated we would be happy to buy the skins at twice the price and skip the rng). In relation to dyes, people not comfortable with the risk can pay a higher price to get it off the tp. Neither of these options is available with the mount adoption in its current state.
The 2 solutions are terrible, 2000 gems for a single skin is extremely overpriced, a 2000 bundle where you have to buy several skins you don't want in order to get the 1-2 you want is almost as bad as your current adoption licenses.
Gliders are 400-500 gems, why can't individual skins be priced that way too?
Better than I expected. I knew nothing could be done about the current license situation without just upsetting another group...but at least in the future we might avoid this. Thumbs up...gold star...so on and so on.
Oh and maybe consider giving us some in-game rewards to work towards. I assuredly get the point of the gem store but to reiterate a point I have made before...if everything is bought and nothing is earned...what are we playing for? And PoF while overall good...feels really lacking in the long term goals department.
Is it really a discount if you are only interested in 3 but end up having to buy 30 just to get what you want?
Not to white knight ANET in this specific case but I feel like the reaction about all of this is overblown.
I initially thought, while being uninformed, that mount skins would be as random as black lion weapon skins (available through tickets).
But later I found out that you are guaranteed a mount skin, and to be honest, at least half of the skins are pretty kitten decent. Let's be frank here for a second. If you were allowed to specifically buy 1 skin, even if it was at 1k gems. Would you even consider buying more than 1 skin? or more than 1 per mount? ANET needs to make money, and while this method seems sort of scumbag-ish, it's a decent one. It would be nothing but starbound and fiery mount skins everywhere. Who would even consider spending any gems / usd on the more 'normal' skins of the bunch?
Still I would have introduced, if it was up to me, more options in the bundles. Leave some randomization so that people are 'forced' to buy more than one, to get the one they want, but not something as strict as 1 out of 30. That's a 3.33% chance of getting the one you specifically want.
I see the mount adoption license identical to those "mystery [item]" that other games have. This option is obviously cheaper than the traditional not-randomized one, and is a fair gamble, as long as there are more direct ways of getting that one skin you want, even if it means paying more. What I would have introduced is a mount-specific license, much like unidentified [color] dyes, that always give you a dye from a certain color spectrum, RNG is drastically reduced like this! Or perhaps a full bundle of skins for a specific mount (instead of being forced to buy all of them). Maybe people really like the Jackal, or Griffon, so instead of buying the 9600 gems pack, they'd pay 3000 for a full set of a certain mount? Surely some people would do that over paying 400 over and over just to get skimmer skins or 9600 to get a ton of skins they don't really care about.
All in all, for a purely cosmetic item, I feel like the outrage was a little unwarranted. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to buy these skins, and if you get one of the less glittery ones, who cares? Rep it up, be unique.
Never said I'm the best, but I believe I'm better than you.
That's the problem, there is no "individual purchase" for these skins. No one would have said anything if these skins were also available for direct purchase.
I forgot to ask: How long are the adoption licenses going to remain in the store? If you don't plan to change them, at least keep them long enough so people can slowly work towards them.