A Message About the Mount Adoption License - Page 4 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

A Message About the Mount Adoption License

1246728

Comments

  • tekfan.3179tekfan.3179 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    @Mike O Brien.4613 said:
    ...

    • 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.

    ...
    ~ MO

    Thanks for the response, but I'd like to add something in regard to this part:
    Could you encourage your artists, especially those responsible for the Jackalope-themed springer skin and the skin with droopy ears for the same mount, to look at the animations before you approve them? In the first case the ears clip through the antlers, in the second case the ears swing into the head of the mount...in simple idle animations. It really impacts the otherwise superb quality of the mounts your team delivered, not to mention that people may pay cash for these skins.

    I wholeheartedly support your decision to cut down on the RNG in the gemstore. If you want to expand sales, might I suggest expanding customization-options? For example: Add customization-slots for saddles and the calls of the mounts. A parrot-like set of calls for the griffon could be hillarious.

    On a personal note: The Cloud Corvus skin for the griffon could use a variant with a tail.

  • Wanze.8410Wanze.8410 Member ✭✭✭

    @Mike O Brien.4613 said:
    Hi,

    We made a commitment to you in March 2012 that we’d fund GW2 live development through non-pay-to-win microtransactions. We try different ideas, but we always hold true to that commitment. We’ve been collecting and discussing your feedback on the Mount Adoption License, and today I’d like to acknowledge and respond to the concerns you’ve raised, and to share our perspective with you.

    I think alot of the negative feedback you received in the last couple of days is based on many of your customers not understanding this kind of business model and mixed financing. Greed and Money Grab were terms used commonly to describe your practice because they only see how much they think it costs to implement a new mount skin and how much profit you make of it.

    Its a vaild concern because obviously, your profit margins on these kinds of micro transactions are pretty high and it looks like an easy way to "print money".

    What most players dont consider, is that this profit margin basically pays for the running costs of developing new content, like LW, new raids, QoL features, which all have to be developed by different dev teams that dont generate alot of revenue because they are mostly delivered at no extra cost and cant be covered by box sales alone.

    Personally, I dont really care about mount skins, so I am greatful for any extra revenue you make through these microtransactions that funds my opportunity to play this game for free apart from the mandatory box sales.

    But I also like the community a whole lot because I have been a part of it for over 5 years and it the current kitten, it wasnt a nice community to be a part of, to be honest. So I also appreciate that you take the time to address these issues and are working on a better solution.

    I had some thoughts about mount skin monetisation that might be fair to the player base and might also generate enough revenue for you, including crowd-funding and a "Design a Mount" Contest to make sure that only mount skins that are popular will make it into the game.

    I posted it on reddit. Feel free to take a look and I would appreciate some feedback, here or on reddit, either from you or someone of your gem store team to point out some things I might have missed regarding Anet´s point of view or things I didnt consider.

  • Personally i think it is fine because Anet team needs to make a living in order to continue serving us this game. Besides, you will eventually get all the mounts at 9.6k gems. I find it no big deal because it's completely optional.

  • Krypto.2069Krypto.2069 Member ✭✭✭

    I think one way of approaching this 30 RNG Mount skin situation is to:

    1) Play the game and make gold. (This is not very hard to do especially in pve.)
    2) Convert gold to 400 gems when you have enough. (Conversion right now is 116 gold = 400 gems. And you got more gems for less gold pre-today's BL Sales. So just keep an eye on when converting is in your favor.)
    3) Buy a license and see what you get! :)
    4) Rinse and Repeat as needed until you get what Mount skins you want. Your odds get better every time you do it. :+1:

    Silverwastes, HoT map metas = easy-peasy ways to make 100-ish gold. There is no need to spend real cash on these skins (or anything else) if you don't want to.

    Cheers!

    Moonlight [THRU]

  • Canis.7451Canis.7451 Member ✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    While I am glad to finally have an official response on this matter, it is extremely disheartening to know that you still have not addressed multiple issues I've seen brought up in the period of this outrage.

    • Will future mount skins included in bundles also be available to be bought individually?
      Gliders and Outfits in bundles have options to buy them individually when included in a bundle, why not mounts?

    • Will future mount skins be priced reasonably, and not rival the price of an expansion?

    • Will you make it so that if we have not unlocked a mount we wont get skins for it out of the RNG box?
      Especially in the case of the griffon which is a mount some people have no interest in acquiring due to the 250 gold pricelock.

    • Will you finally distance yourself from RNG gamble boxes following this lashback?

    I understand your stance on the issue, but even if you are set on not removing this gamblebox (understandable, honestly, although still depressing) then why not include some of the more desired skins in it to be bought individually, but at a markup? Somewhere between 500 and 800 gems each. Because then those that got the skins through the gamblebox would have received them at a discount for playing with RNG but you would be allowing your playerbase an alternative

  • @Kahrgan.7401 said:
    In summary: "Please continue to shovel money our way, I'm sorry you feel that we were in the wrong"

    Story time: My roommate's boyfriend, whos never played guild wars 1 or 2, was asking me about the "mount loot box" as he saw the huge upset it created, and after talking with him he said that he was thinking about picking up the game but will not now due to this.

    You push more people away with bad decisions like this. The bad press from mount loot boxes cost you more than you gained short term.

    Short sighted as always.

    if that roommate's boyfriend doesn't start this game because of some OPTIONAL skin-set (that admitedly is rng and bad) he is missing out all the rest of the game that is very awesome indeed and well done and so far without even a glimps of "pay to win"

    i personally am satisfied that there will no further skins be on the rng-table and i m looking forward to the skins that can be purchased directly

  • UncleHank.8160UncleHank.8160 Member ✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    I'll keep on using my shadow abyss Halloween skins until we see what the next mount release brings.

  • Fade.5904Fade.5904 Member ✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    I personally dont mind the system but i think it would have been better to be able to buy specific mounts. Less chance of getting something you dont want or can't use.
    My 16 year old niece plays GW2 and obviously hasn't got very much disposable income but she bought a single mount and got the astral griffon.. nice but she has 100g in her account and probably wont ever get a griffon.
    Couldn't you sell random chances at each species? then collecting them all wouldnt seem such a pain.
    Thankyou

  • I'm disappointed in the resolution of this issue, because the fiasco highlighted the issue of lack of in-game rewards and ability to customize our characters appearances in-game.

    These mounts and grab-bag mechanic would have been perfect to allow players into getting unique meaningful rewards from PoF, allowing the gem store to be stuffed with the other two delivery options

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

    @Fire X.5184 said:
    yeeeah no. I will say good that you will change your ways (we shall see about that) but at the same time you can't change the system with existing license? Are you kidding me? here I will fix it for you. Make it that we can choose the mounts we want and give the gems back. Don't give a money refund just give the gems back and take away the skins. Then they can choose the skins they want and at the same time they have gems left over. You keep the money and we get the skins we want everyone is happy.

    Sound good on the surface but I am fairly sure Anet has stated that it is not easy to remove account unlocks and is on a case by case basis and may even involve rolling an account back. So that won't work.

  • I want the shiny-looking griffon skin... but that's odds of 1 in 30 and my odds always drown me dead. Also we have the Black Lion RNG chests, please don't add any more shenanigans.

    Really feel the Adoption Licenses are a big lost opportunity in which if it was pick-and-choose, to study what gets adopted the most... like catering to what might be the better idea/design after combing through results. Also not end up like the reforged hound skin for the jackal-- 2k gems for a single mount skin is over the top. Would have been a better idea to make reforged variants of the rest of the mounts and have them at a slightly even or lower price, like the spooky skin pack.

    but meh.

    [HzH] -- JQ

  • I thoroughly enjoy the fact that you guys are willing to try new things, push in unexplored directions, and seriously take feedback into consideration. There will be bumps here and there but it's all a learning process.
    For me, all the skins look wonderful (bravo, artists!) and I've been having a blast trying out different dye combinations. This expansion has been the most fun I've had with this game thus far and I cannot put to words how enjoyable the mounts have been. Their animations, how they control and feel, VFX and all - I can tell a lot of attention and love have been put into them. I'll admit I won't be sad to see the skin RNG factor go, but thus far they have been worth my every penny!
    Thank you for this post and all the hard work you and the rest of your team put into this game. I look forward to what the future holds.

  • Rauderi.8706Rauderi.8706 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Thanks for the explanation of the thought process, MO. To be honest, I would've guessed this was the case, but it means a lot when a developer comes forward and admits that it was hurtful or unsavory.

    To be honest, I'll be a little sad if the only way to get new skins through price gouging, though.

    A 2000-gem pack, even for 5 skins, is more than I'd want to spend to get just a few that are in it. 500 each would still end up saving me 1000 gems if I only buy the two I actually use on a regular basis.

    And 2000 for a single mount skin is out of line, no matter what the market study folks told you by looking over WoW's shoulder. And yes, I noticed that the price is exactly equivalent. For a particularly spiffy, work-intensive mount, I'd honestly cap at 700-800, parallel to an Outfit. Granted, I'm lacking a decade of market research and tons of background data, but as a player who has actually spent cash on some cosmetics I was willing to buy, I consider it good faith to tell ANet what I'd be willing to pay.

    Many alts! Handle it!

    "A condescending answer might as well not be an answer at all."
    -Eloc Freidon.5692

  • So, what does this mean? All mounts from now on are going to cost two thousand gems? I hope not!

    I can not be optimistic as currently nothing has actually changed and we only have a vague promise that things will be done differently in the future. Considering the amazingly bad judgement the team has had so far in regards to mounts, I will take that promise with a pinch of salt.

  • Kahrgan.7401Kahrgan.7401 Member ✭✭✭

    @Jaskar.3071 said:

    @Kahrgan.7401 said:
    In summary: "Please continue to shovel money our way, I'm sorry you feel that we were in the wrong"

    Story time: My roommate's boyfriend, whos never played guild wars 1 or 2, was asking me about the "mount loot box" as he saw the huge upset it created, and after talking with him he said that he was thinking about picking up the game but will not now due to this.

    You push more people away with bad decisions like this. The bad press from mount loot boxes cost you more than you gained short term.

    Short sighted as always.

    if that roommate's boyfriend doesn't start this game because of some OPTIONAL skin-set (that admitedly is rng and bad) he is missing out all the rest of the game that is very awesome indeed and well done and so far without even a glimps of "pay to win"

    i personally am satisfied that there will no further skins be on the rng-table and i m looking forward to the skins that can be purchased directly

    it's about loot boxes in general ruining online gaming.

  • Alga.6498Alga.6498 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I will support and I will gladly purchase gemshop items, no matter what. If I like it of course. But I bought the 9,600 gems mount skin license contract because I love the variatons and the skins!

    | Separatist | Nightmare Court | Inquest | White Mantle | Sunspears | Loyalists | Ascalon | Kryta | Ebonhawke | Elona | Istan | Kourna | Vabbi | Cantha | Luxon | Kurzick | 71 characters | "Rally to me, Ascalonians!" "Keep Ascalon in your heart." "May the Gods protect you." "Be blessed by the Six."

  • Just rotate the mounts through the gem store at a higher price (800 gems?). That way people can gamble and still get "value" (throws up a little in mouth) from the adoption licenses and people who want a few of the skins can just wait until they come around.

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.