A Message About the Mount Adoption License - Page 3 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

A Message About the Mount Adoption License

1356728

Comments

  • JustTrogdor.7892JustTrogdor.7892 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    @Khaldris.9026 said:

    @Mike O Brien.4613 said:

    • 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.

    That would cause a second backlash from those that did spend thousands of gems on rolls to get the one or two mount skins they wanted. So if they did that then there would be another mega thread from people that played the RNG game stating they got ripped off because now for 200 more gems they could have just bought the one they wanted. The RNG thing is a done deal. There is no way I can see to offer the current 30 skins other than how they are offered now without causing another PR nightmare. Example, "kitten I spent 2400 gems on rolls to get one mount skin I want and now you are selling it directly for 600 gems. I got ripped off!"

  • Haha just wait till these money grabbers release the recent data mined 'Black Lion Arsenal Box' 'Receive a random Black Lion Weapon skin of the weapon of your choice'. More RNG INCOMING

  • so im gonna take a guess on this, while u dont plan to do this in the future, you have backed yourself into a corner with these 30 skins, ill throw a wild guess out there and say, in order to make them available individually it would devalue the purchases already made, and to revert this fact would be a customer service nightmare, that could take days or weeks to fix, hence scrap the idea of adding more lootbox skins, and just leave the people who already purchased them alone. but in the process of doing this you affect the people who dont want rng, but in fact just want the skins separately.

    now if this is the case, may i give you a suggestion, random bundles through out the year that contain small amounts of these skins that prices itself depending on how many skins players own, might be a programming nightmare, but its an option to at least fix this mess of an idea

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭

    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.

    Thank you for your response Mike. I expected that if you are going to adress our concerns this would be your decision. And I am fully satisfied.

    For anyone expecting that current set is going to be changed you are really, really naive. The reason they can't change current set is explained by Mike - people already bought it on current rules. The scope of potential refunds is most likely to big to change existing set.

    But at the end Mike says we are right and they are going to sell future mounts without RNG boxes.

    This is the only win-win scenario here.

  • @Tayledras.1604 said:
    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.

    So true. Is it possible the company doesn't understand people who like playing mmorpgs.

    Click on your name up top. Click the little icon with the down arrow for preferences. Click Signature Settings to the right.

  • Thank you for the communication over the matter instead of being quiet :)

    A City of Heroes never die... A City of Villains will never surrender... Neither City will be forgotten.

  • This isn't the news a lot of people were hoping for, but thanks for at least acknowledging the problem and listening to feedback. I hope you can strike a better balance moving forward where player's wishes and game revenue can both be positively looked after.

  • The real funny thing will be when the next nice skins will cost 2000 gems for one again so that you then have to pay 10000 gems for 5 skins while now you could have paid 9600 gems for 30, which of course included the 5 best for each mount.

    If the next nice ones cost "discounted" 1600 per set of 5 instead of 2000 for one it will be fine.

    YouTube “L2villagejester”.
    People using belittling wording like whining/qqing" are not taken seriously by me
    Same for people posting only to tell others not to post (“deal with it”-posts)

  • 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.

    This is a satisfactory response to me. I will not purchase the random grab bag chance with real world money though.
    Maybe if I get gems via achievements or gold, but even then there are plenty of wonderful and unique outfits I could directly purchase from the gem store.
    We hold this game, this company, you Mo to high standards because we value this game more than other titles out there.
    Thank you for this statement.

  • @JustTrogdor.7892 said:

    @Khaldris.9026 said:

    @Mike O Brien.4613 said:

    • 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.

    That would cause a second backlash from those that did spend thousands of gems on rolls to get the one or two mount skins they wanted. So if they did that then there would be another mega thread from people that played the RNG game stating they got ripped off because now for 200 more gems they could have just bought the one they wanted. The RNG thing is a done deal. There is no way I can see to offer the current 30 skins other than how they are offered now without causing another PR nightmare. Example, "kitten I spent 2400 gems on rolls to get one mount skin I want and now you are selling it directly for 600 gems. I got ripped off!"

    The more consumer-friendly answer there is to remove all skins, refund gems, and then give people the option to either re-buy their RNG license, or to just pick out the ones they want.

    However, I have no idea how finances work at ArenaNet, so I don't even know if that's possible at this point.

  • Nandafowfa.4295Nandafowfa.4295 Member ✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    I'm happy we finally got an answer about this matter (and that was what I really wanted) because we knew that there was no way to change or balance the method to acquire these mount without damaging the one that already bought or Anet (at least is what I think) with the refunds that I'm sure a lot of players would want because of the skins they got.
    Thanks for listening and sharing your thoughts and decisions.

  • Wolfheart.7483Wolfheart.7483 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    @Khisanth.2948 said:

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

    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?

    No, it just means that particular mount skin offering isn't for you. Just wait for a mount skin offering you like.

  • Elothar.4382Elothar.4382 Member ✭✭✭

    I was not happy with this rollout but this seems a reasonable response to me. I appreciate that changing the system now would be unfair to those that have already invested. Also, the promise not to add additional skins to the package and not dilute the odds is good. All in all, I'm okay with this approach. Thanks for the discussion.

  • @JustTrogdor.7892 said:

    @Khaldris.9026 said:

    @Mike O Brien.4613 said:

    • 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.

    That would cause a second backlash from those that did spend thousands of gems on rolls to get the one or two mount skins they wanted. So if they did that then there would be another mega thread from people that played the RNG game stating they got ripped off because now for 200 more gems they could have just bought the one they wanted. The RNG thing is a done deal. There is no way I can see to offer the current 30 skins other than how they are offered now without causing another PR nightmare. Example, "kitten I spent 2400 gems to get one mount skin I want and now you are selling to others for 600 gems. I got ripped off!"

    i too think there is too much tension in this matter now; better not changing anything now to not make it even worse and kitten off the ones that are not pissed off yet

    i really dislike the decision to use rng outside of black lion chests (with the adoption license system), but its only optional skins after all and there is no drawback at all if you don't buy the mount skins (besides of being less shiny i guess)

    i m looking forward to spend my money on skins i can purchase directly without rng :)

  • Oh. So this means future tickets wont be used then? I made a mistake and got an extra license left..

  • I think there are ways in between direct selling skins and one out of thirty RNG style. One way would be to have two or three different skins pop up, but you only get to choose one of the three random skins. Another would be to have a one re-roll option if the player did not like the first option. This will keep it RNG but also give a better chance for player to receive their desired skin.

    I feel like the 2000 gems for a single mount skin is way to much. I understand it make it an exclusive skin that few people will have, but at least give a mini version with and even an immortal skin box. Outfit packages are on same price level which give a lot more.

  • troops.8276troops.8276 Member ✭✭✭

    I wonder how much they made out of it?
    A few million?
    Several million?
    Or just many hundreds of thousands?

    Next round it could be:
    Packs of one skin per mount type (with only one desirable skin in each) for $20 each x 6
    Single premium skins for $25 each
    and maybe a couple of donkeys for $5 a pop

  • Looking at some of the responses I want to remind people of the concept of voting with their wallet...and that it means not only refusing to support unfavorable practices, but also supporting favorable ones.

    The damage is done...anything they would do now to the licenses to alter or enhance them risks upsetting and devaluing players who already made the purchases. Example being if you bought 5 licences trying to get X mount and failed...then they release the mounts for individual sale. Yay you can buy the one you wanted...but you wasted all your gems on the 5 you bought.

    By all means continue to boycott the RNG heavy gem store additions...but boycotting the gem store entirely accomplishes nothing. Encourage them through your normal purchases to stick to giving us direct products. And I highlight normal purchases...meaning if you see something you like, that is fair and consumer positive...support it. Otherwise just carry on as usual.

  • This was pretty much the response I was expecting. Despite the bitter taste in many mouths right now... Thank you, MO and Anet, for taking the time to listen to your community. This solution is definitely not what most people seem to have been hoping for, but I can respect where Anet is coming from on that end and I think that the solution you've provided does move towards meeting us in the middle.

    I, like many others, will not purchase any of the RNG mount skins - but I agree with your reasons for keeping the existing 30 skins as they are, and as long as you stay away from this practice in the future I will happily invest in mount packs or individual releases where the result is guaranteed. I have always wanted to see this game succeed, and I am glad to support you as long as you stick to your commitments.

    From a long-time fan: please do not repeat this mistake in the future.

  • Should also state that I'm glad I'm mostly the pessimistic type so I can't get disappointed in the long run.
    I'm far from disappointed as I simply thought after this morning there wouldn't be an answer.

    The only thing I can say after reading it over and even some of these comments are that I think it might've been better if there was no response at all and just whatever plans for next time you did and let this slip under the rug.
    Can't hear tone/expression in text, but the response doesn't truly sit right with me as something seems off.

    I am not saying it's cynical or anything. It just feels "off".

  • @Razor.6392 said:

    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?

    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.

    parsed for emphasis here....

    that's the problem.... no one would buy the other skins! no one wants the other skins! no one likes the other skins!! we are being forced to buy bad content to get to the good content we want. you said it yourself, this is scumbag-ish... it cant be decent AND scumbag-ish.... this has turned into my cable bill all over again.... buy 400 channels cuz the 10 I like happen to be in that package..... this is a kitten practice, they are capable of making enough money with the current way of selling skins! 3rd quarter sales are well and good and on par with making the next expansion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! they aren't gonna go broke overnight just cuz they don't sell a few lousy skins!! this is money grabbing KITTENERY at its finest here...

  • Can the skins in the license be sold separately at 600 or 700? Those who paid license got it cheap with 400.

  • RobotInProgress.9782RobotInProgress.9782 Member ✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    "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.

    ~ MO"

    Single mount skins and packs seems like the better option, although when you say like the Reforged Warhound I do hope you don't intend for all mount skins sold individually to cost the same price.
    Additionally, I would highly urge one slight change to the adoption license, this being being able to select the mount you want a skin for. But if not, nevermind.

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Bredegi.1943 said:
    Oh. So this means future tickets wont be used then? I made a mistake and got an extra license left..

    I'm pretty sure CS should be able to refund you additional license.

  • Thank you Mike for your response. Only one thing, please continue to have items/skins in game that people should either be really lucky, or pay a steep price to get (read: 2000 gems isn't steep). I may not personally go after each one of them, but I like that they exist. I actually don't want to see everyone and their mother rolling around in your company's best creations. Just like real life.

  • I would very much like to see an option in the future, perhaps with new skins, to earn them by working for them. Perhaps via in-game collections, or as part of the expanding story. Creating story elements that incorporate thematic changes to your mount(s) as you enter new areas or interact with new people/environments would add a great deal. Perhaps even a dramatic event (such as something like the bloodstone burst) that transformed your mount's appearance could provide a ready-made opportunity to introduce a single skin here or there.

    While I respect the fact that skins are not necessary in any way to "win", it's undeniable that art collection is a big part of (if not THE biggest part of) the GW2 end-game. While mount skins for large amounts (!!!) of gems are not "pay to win", they are certainly "pay to look cool". By loosely equating "looking cool" to "winning", I think it's apparent why many players could feel that the adoptions pack feel very similar to something that is "pay to win", even though it technically isn't. This doesn't invalidate what you wrote, but it does highlight a practice I really hope doesn't become commonplace in the future.

    I also echo the sentiments of others that $25USD (or in the case of the 30-pack, ~$125USD) is by no reasonable standard a "micro"-transaction. Call them "macrotransactions" or "purchases" perhaps, but paying more than half of the base cost of the expansion for cosmetic skins treads pretty heavily into the territory of feeling like a blatant cash-grab. It's something GW2 has done a good job (for the most part) of avoiding in the past, and I hope something that will be a renewed focus in the future.

  • I stand by my ticket, although more frustrated at a game mechanic that was failing me than the actual loot RNG.

    I planned to do GW2 as a subscription based game soon, $20 a month to help support the team and it's efforts that have been amazing with the most recent expansion. this also would allow me access to funds for things like, but not limited to, bag slot expansions, shared bags, bank space, etc. high costing static luxuries will always beat RNG mechanics. it's why best buy can charge you $30 for a product you can order online for $15. the here and now is always more consumer friendly than having to wait and taking the risk it might get damaged in the meantime. the Anet team has done a bang up job on a F2P game and many of us don't mean to sound like disrespectful children. but we do hold you to a higher standard than most other games. yes, i'd rather pay $5 for a specific mount skin that looks BA than one i would see as sub par or not to my liking. this would mean i would spend maybe $60 in total for the new skins not getting all of them.... that being said, halving the price of the current box(and refunding gems to those who have spent the $120 price tag) would be the better route to go. this way you get something more than nothing, and i can RNG until i feel satisfied. I think the biggest issue wasn't the RNG behind the boxes per se, but that it was attached to such a high cost with so many variables within and each individual player only liking maybe a handful to a dozen skins.

    none-the-less thank you for the response, i look forward to your future products. I love y'all, keep up the great work!

  • Nilson.9865Nilson.9865 Member ✭✭✭

    @troops.8276 said:
    I wonder how much they made out of it?
    A few million?
    Several million?...

    I don't know how its in your country but in mine,counting money of others is not very noble deed :/ In terms of man's good moral qualities. Better let's stick to the topic :)

  • JustTrogdor.7892JustTrogdor.7892 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Suggestion for good PR after all of this negativity. Make an "apology" mount skin, raptor, skimmer, whatever. It doesn't have to be amazing, like the Royal Guard outfit you made for veterans after the HoT issue. Give it to everyone that bought PoF before this happened. Just an idea. :)

  • Umut.5471Umut.5471 Member ✭✭✭

    Arenanet, I think it would be a lot better if you guys sold each of those skins for 1600 or 2000 gems without RNG. You would be able to still sell high amount of gems,
    and players would be happy to get rid of the RNG. Personally I don't need all of the skins there. Most players will be going for Starbound skins or those skins with flames or cool effects. Some skins are too basic and they don't make people happy to unlock them.

This discussion has been closed.
©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.