A Message About the Mount Adoption License - Page 7 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

A Message About the Mount Adoption License

145791028

Comments

  • I use the gemstore quite frequently, I have roughly 66% of the Glider and Outfits for example. I seriously considered buying the Spooky Mounts but decided against it since I just returned to the game after 6 months and might want to buy stuff I missed in that time. But when the Adoption Licenses hit I was torn between laughing and facepalming...
    I appreciate that you acknowledged the controversy behind the lootbox system, I will wait and see what you come up with for the next mount skins. But in my opinion the Reforged Warhound (way too expensive for a single skin) and the Adoption Licenses (hilariously expensive/RNG) are the worst features to ever hit the gemstore.
    I still have hope you will find a similar solution as you did with the Glider and Outfit skins.

  • @zealex.9410 said:

    @JaddynnStarr.5201 said:

    @Lambent.6375 said:
    Why would some people think they were going to change the current 30 pack skin system? The best option is that they will be avoiding rng mounts in the future.

    If they changed the current one they would suddenly have to deal with a lot of people that made $50-$100+ purchases.

    We understand that, but there have been half a dozen or more options layed out to them that would allow them to retain the money spent, give the players the mounts they want and not suffer an ymore bad PR.....

    Why is there going to be any more bad RP because of this?

    Because this is a fancy way of saying "Thanks for your money. Suck it up."

  • Thanks for not fixing the problem. You did it.

  • Adenin.5973Adenin.5973 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    @Hecate.2891 said:
    Yeah don't get it twisted. I, and many others, are not asking for free skins. We actually are asking anet to sell us their goods without a gambling factor and some of us, myself included, are willing to pay higher than 400 gems to do so. We ARE asking them to let us give them our money with a minor stipulation that up until this week has been a rather normal business procedure.

    But the rng is not at all the main problem people really have.

    Try imagine this:
    10 mount skins were just added to the game, available directly through achievements. The other 20 mount skins are ingame available through very long term collections (We're talking about several days or weeks of hard work for a single collection). These 20 mount are now also available through the equivalent of a super expensive black lion chest, with a random dropchance for one of it.

    This is in fact the way some games that are considerable successful and profitable (Warframe for example) do it. Make everything a bit harder to get ingame, a grind and also sell it on your cashshop. As long as the grind is fun enough people keep playing and as long at it is hard enough to get, enough people keep buying. A constant balance. We don't have that in GW2 at all!

    Would the high price and the rng element now be a problem? Hell no. We wouldn't have anywhere near the outrage. So how can the rng thing be the main problem of this game when it is only a symptom. A symptom caused by the main problem: that the majority of new and cool looking stuff are cash shop exclusives.

    That's what the sh*tstorm should've been all about. The main message. Instead people complained about the wrong thing and Anet in their "explanation" didn't even mention once that they plan on adding any new skins as ingame rewards. Because apparently this was not what this thing was about.

  • Logged into forums ( that I usually avoid) to appreciate this statement. Very coehent positioning.

  • Ider.1276Ider.1276 Member ✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    @Mike O Brien.4613 said:
    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.

    You could go for a compromise and sell individual skins from lootboxes for x2-x3 amount of gems. Those who bought your adoption licences would be happy to have 2-3 times more skins than people who bought more pricy individual skins. Those who bought a single skin for 800-1200 gems instead of 400 would be happy they got what they want without gambling. Alternatively, you could give a refund to all who bought lootboxes so they could buy what they want. It is not like you have to return then real money, that is just your non-existant currency you are refunding.

    But you didn't. Because you don't want us to give you some money and ride away happily after getting what we want. You want all the money we could be milked off by gambling. That is why the lootboxes will stay in the game. Well, at least you made it clear.

    I won't wave a banner and shout about leaving the game or not buying anything from gemstore ever (though I doubt I will ever again purchase anything with real money). I am just an average person with average infuence on like a dosen of my friends. I objectivelly can't fight you, I can't compel you to do a just and right thing. So I will shut up, with my trust in customer-friendly Anet shattered to peices forever.

    But if you actually care about the good game you created (which I actually truelly love at the end of a day), think about this. You alienated casuals, when you made a 180 degree turn from vanily to HoT. Then you alienated hardcore players that came to GW2 during HoT start by a 180 turn to PoF with no new challenging or end-game content. Now with your adoption of trendy lootbox system you are alienating all those "dolphins" (I really hate this term) like me that were happy to give you like 15-20$ from time to time for some shiny they actually liked. Every time you chase for an innovation, you burn the bridges and discard everything you created before instead of analising it and building on what was actually good. And every time you do it you are loosing a part of your playerbase which liked the things you destroyed. Today you destroyed a customer-friendly gemstore reputation for some of us. How long can you sacrifice your playerbase peice by peice in your wild chase?

    Oh, I think I should thank you for honesty, the quickness of your reply, your attention to the subject... But I'd rather thank God for Jim.

  • I love a few of the mount skins but some I really don't like at all and would never use them so it would be a complete waste for me to even consider buying any.

  • Kasima.8143Kasima.8143 Member ✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    So here's the problem right. It's going to be difficult as hell to beat those celestial skins for the doggie and the griffon. They seemed very popular. So I don't know how you're going to convince people who like these skins to go for something else rather than wait for you to maybe put that 30-license pack on sale or change your mind and sell them in different packs.

  • Devildoc.6721Devildoc.6721 Member ✭✭✭

    Mike one more thing if you're out there still listening that might be a compromise.. and that is to let us buy the mount adoptions per mount rather than all 30 at once. Now you can narrow it down to within 6 skins and it'll be on a mount of your choosing. I had some leftover gems and decided to buy a few things since it was apparent no changes were going to be made and lo and behold I got the Jackalope Hopper and Stardust Jackal as the first two . Now this is great considering the long odds I was playing and these are 2 of the 3 skins I really liked. But now.. to get the 3rd skin, my odds are even longer, and not only that, but any other hopper or jackal skins I acquire are complete wastes as I have the one skin I want to use for those mounts already.

    If I could buy just griffon licenses, knowing that at most I'd have to buy 6... you'd have yourselves a deal.... but since I'm not interested in any of the skins for raptor or skimmer, and have the only skins I want for hopper and jackal.. that's a really, really really hard deal to sell I hope you can understand that situation.

  • @Adenin.5973 said:

    @Hecate.2891 said:
    Yeah don't get it twisted. I, and many others, are not asking for free skins. We actually are asking anet to sell us their goods without a gambling factor and some of us, myself included, are willing to pay higher than 400 gems to do so. We ARE asking them to let us give them our money with a minor stipulation that up until this week has been a rather normal business procedure.

    But the rng is not at all the main problem people really have.

    Try imagine this:
    10 mount skins were just added to the game, available directly through achievements. The other 20 mount skins are ingame available through very long term collections (We're talking about several days or weeks of hard work for a single collection). These 20 mount are now also available through the equivalent of a super expensive black lion chest, with a random dropchance for one of it.

    This is in fact the way some games that are considerable successful and profitable (Warframe for example) do it. Make everything a bit harder to get ingame, a grind and also sell it on your cashshop. As long as the grind is fun enough people keep playing and as long at it is hard enough to get, enough people keep buying. A constant balance. We don't have that in GW2 at all!

    Would the high price and the rng element now be a problem? Hell no. We wouldn't have anywhere near the outrage. So how can the rng thing be the main problem of this game when it is only a symptom. A symptom caused by the main problem: that the majority of new and cool looking stuff are cash shop exclusives.

    That's what the sh*tstorm should've been all about. The main message. Instead people complained about the wrong thing and Anet in their "explanation" didn't even mention once that they plan on adding any new skins as ingame rewards. Because apparently this was not what this thing was about.

    bud, were all kinda already one step ahead of you on that idea. there isn't a person here that's gonna argue with you over whether or not there should be more put into direct game content vs the cashshop.... the problem is, it has been this way systemically for years now and we recognize the futility of beating that dead horse. We all want more put into the game to earn.... Anet has made it a point of saying NO.... now they are doubling down on the cash shop and we are trying to walk it back a bit. People have gotten so used to just buying gems to obtain anything good, that it has become the status quo.

  • The singular hound is wayyyyy overpriced currently. Hopefully bundles will be the cost of a singular mount skin currently. I can do that. Also make some awesome ones achievement related. Us Achieve hunters would greatly appreciate it.

    Old Timers Guild - [OTG] ~ New Authority [Auth] ~ Sinful Wasters - [SW] ~Lots of Fun Things [LOFT] ~ Roamers Only [ROAM]

    The old fart behind a computer screen still learning something everyday. So be gentle!

  • zealex.9410zealex.9410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Critwrench.8432 said:
    This doesn't address any of the concerns at all.

    People want to buy the skins. They do not want to GAMBLE for the skins. Take the RNG off and raise the price of the skins IF YOU MUST, but I don't think you have to. Gliders were all 400 gems, more if it included a backpiece, I see no reason to deviate from that model.

    Furthermore, this controversy has raised ancillary concerns from "nitpicks" to "actual issues" amongst your playerbase, and you have addressed none of them.

    WHY are all default mounts 1 dye channel, when all the skins conveniently have 4?
    WHY are there no mount skins earnable as in-game rewards, in an expansion sorely lacking in medium- or long-term reasons to keep playing the maps?
    WHY do you have the resources to release thirty skins at once for the gemstore, but you can't throw one or two into a box that people like myself have paid up to eighty dollars for? I'm not saying I don't want to work for them, I'm not even saying I don't want to buy them. I'm saying that the current situation is the absolute worst for everyone involved, except perhaps your yarn-pawing kitten bottom line.

    It's greed, blatant and putrid, and your customers expect better than that from you.

    I dont believe its fair for the mounts to be on the same price as the glider since theres more work going into them.

  • zealex.9410zealex.9410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @StaggerLee.6397 said:
    Is a mount skin being $5 really considered discounted?

    Considering blizzard sells their skins for 25$ id say yes.

  • Djinn.9245Djinn.9245 Member ✭✭✭

    @Endlos.4852 said:
    "Hey we understand that you're angry that we tried to exploit you, but we're not backing down on that because it would be too much effort to rectify things for the players we already fleeced, and we could still make money from new players with this scam, but we promise not to do it again in the future." Adding three bullet points that all say the same thing and try spin it as if Anet was doing us a favor with their predatory pseudo-gambling system doesn't really make me feel all that appeased. This seems less like "Wow, we really messed up, we tried to take advantage of you as customers, and we're sorry" and more like "Man, we grossly underestimated how upset you'd be by us exploiting you, we'll tone it down in the future."

    LOL! Great summation!

  • @zealex.9410 said:

    @StaggerLee.6397 said:
    Is a mount skin being $5 really considered discounted?

    Considering blizzard sells their skins for 25$ id say yes.

    I disagree as this is not WoW... furthermore typical skins IN OUR GAME usually run the gambit of 400-800 gems which is $5-$10. Discounted... no. on the cheaper side of things yes.

  • Vegeta.2563Vegeta.2563 Member ✭✭✭

    @Menadena.7482 said:
    Mike, if I have one question it is this:

    What are you supposed to do if you do not HAVE a particular mount nor intend to get it (most likely the griffon) then get a skin for it? That does not unlock the griffon so you are out $5 of gems for nothing.

    I can already see the answer.. "You'll have the mount eventually, so the skin will be waiting for you!" :tongue:

  • zealex.9410zealex.9410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @JaddynnStarr.5201 said:

    @zealex.9410 said:

    @StaggerLee.6397 said:
    Is a mount skin being $5 really considered discounted?

    Considering blizzard sells their skins for 25$ id say yes.

    I disagree as this is not WoW... furthermore typical skins IN OUR GAME usually run the gambit of 400-800 gems which is $5-$10. Discounted... no. on the cheaper side of things yes.

    I disagree. I believe a price around 800-1000 gems is a fair price for 1 mount with 1.6k gems for a full set of mounts.

  • @zealex.9410 said:
    I dont believe its fair for the mounts to be on the same price as the glider since theres more work going into them.

    The first gliders in gemstore were bat wing glider and exalted glider, both a complete remodel with new textures and effects. First mount skins were simple retextures of existing (spookey skins and most of lootbox pack) with a few mounts with tweeked model (some griffons, bunnies). The only complete remodel was warforged jackal for 2k gems. So I call kitten on that. The overall amount of skins are just mere recolor +particle effects, that are not that hard to do.

  • @zealex.9410 said:

    @JaddynnStarr.5201 said:

    @zealex.9410 said:

    @StaggerLee.6397 said:
    Is a mount skin being $5 really considered discounted?

    Considering blizzard sells their skins for 25$ id say yes.

    I disagree as this is not WoW... furthermore typical skins IN OUR GAME usually run the gambit of 400-800 gems which is $5-$10. Discounted... no. on the cheaper side of things yes.

    I disagree. I believe a price around 800-1000 gems is a fair price for 1 mount with 1.6k gems for a full set of mounts.

    well regardless of what you think they should be at.... they have been selling past and present at 400 gems for all mounts but the single jackal one, so no that isn't a discount, that's the normal price of them currently and on the cheaper side as gliders and regular char skins run 500-700 gems. As for future sales, I could tolerate 800 gems for a mount skin if it wasn't just a recolor... 1600 would be good for a standard 5 pack of skins.

  • Ohoni.6057Ohoni.6057 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @zealex.9410 said:

    @StaggerLee.6397 said:
    Is a mount skin being $5 really considered discounted?

    Considering blizzard sells their skins for 25$ id say yes.

    It bears repeating, Blizzard is Blizzard. Don't try to be Blizzard, because you ain't Blizzard.

  • "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."

    Then put them all in individually, charge less for the skins no one wants, charge more for the skins everyone wants. Why should the majority of players be punished because a few people like the less flashy skins?

  • TheQuickFox.3826TheQuickFox.3826 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    @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. [...]
    ~ MO

    What about the game and expansion sales as main monetization? (The no-monthly-fees promise) Besides the gem store? (The Guild Wars 1 model?) I surely pre-ordered the game and its two expansions and am commited to keep doing so. In GW1 this seemed to work out great.

    Sure, I also used the gem store, and even spent more there than on the chapters, but I always considered the game and later the expansion sales to be the main income stream.

    Ascalon Will Prevail!

    GW Wiki user page | GW2 Wiki user page

  • @Game of Bones.8975 said:
    What about a "golden adoption ticket" that allows a person to select the specific skin they are looking for?

    This could be used like the Jubilant and Exuberant Dye packs.
    Maybe as part of a choosy birthday thing , a Taming Bridle to allow you to choose mounts released from previous bundles.

    I appreciate the explanation of the logic behind the choices you folks made. I love this game and support it through microtransactions because I want it and the people that are behind it to thrive. That being said, I treat my payments into the game like a subscription. Once a month a little something to treat myself in the gem store.
    The addition of a bunch of skins at once was going to result in this no matter what.
    30 individual full priced skins in the Gem Store was going to be too much, while plans for more later would be backed up if they were dripped out over time. It would have lead to community fatigued and just as disenchanted with the situation.
    The result being the RNG license model.

    Considering I usually pick up a pack of BLC keys a month, I can see trying at a mount skin instead, but I prefer the random useful items in the BLC to one mount skin.

  • Shrimpkin.4851Shrimpkin.4851 Member ✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    I would have paid through the nose for that starry jackal skin if it was sold individually. Now though? Blow it out your a*s Anet.

    I'm not asocial, I'm selectively social. There's a difference.

  • @zealex.9410 said:

    @StaggerLee.6397 said:
    Is a mount skin being $5 really considered discounted?

    Considering blizzard sells their skins for 25$ id say yes.

    WoW has hundreds of mounts obtainable through gameplay, and the majority of store mounts have unique skeletons. The forgehound is the closest thing to any Blizzard store mount(unique model, reused skeleton), and it's... $25. Don't pretend that ANet is any less predatory than Activision, EA, or any of their subsidiaries.

  • Ohoni.6057Ohoni.6057 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ider.1276 said:

    @zealex.9410 said:
    I dont believe its fair for the mounts to be on the same price as the glider since theres more work going into them.

    The first gliders in gemstore were bat wing glider and exalted glider, both a complete remodel with new textures and effects. First mount skins were simple retextures of existing (spookey skins and most of lootbox pack) with a few mounts with tweeked model (some griffons, bunnies). The only complete remodel was warforged jackal for 2k gems. So I call kitten on that. The overall amount of skins are just mere recolor +particle effects, that are not that hard to do.

    To be absolutely fair, while many of the "dirty-30" mount skins involved relatively subtle model tweaks, there were more than they're getting credit for. Most of the non-Griffon skins involved at least minor model tweaks, slightly different head shapes, tail shapes, "Rock v Sand" layouts, etc. They aren't as noticeable when released alongside "flaming griffon" and "doge jackal," but at least soem modeling work went into them. They should still be available as single pieces for less than 300 gems, but some work did go into them.

  • Could do something similar to the dye packs... they are mostly RNG, as in you don't know which one you're going to get, but eventually there was an item given out that let you pick the exact dye you wanted from those packs - just not at first. If it was legit for that, it should be for the mount skins. There'll probably be a backlash from a different set of customers if it happens too soon though.

    Maybe you could introduce a higher-priced (800 gems?) alternative that lets you pick one of the skins you don't already have for, say, Wintersday? And add a Wintersday meta-achievement or collection for PoF players that rewards one of those "golden adoption licenses" on completion? Obviously it wouldn't be that useful if you already had all of them, so perhaps it would also be tradeable.

  • Really disappointing that there's going to be no fix for this. People have suggested plenty of solutions. I'm particularly a fan of introducing a "golden" ticket like Game of Bones suggested. Just raise the price higher than a regular ticket, and the golden ticket lets u pick any mount skin u want out of the thirty. That way folks who already bought mount skins still get a good discount in comparison, keep the skins they already bought, and have the added fun of the rng. Frankly I'd be much happier paying double the 400 gem price for a skin I ACTUALLY want, instead of risking getting something I'll never use. Shame, because there's easily 6 skins I would've insta-bought too. Point is, having mounts be the cornerstone of the new expansion and then putting the grand majority of skins behind a system that takes all choice away from the player feels bad. It's why so many people are upset, because there isn't an alternative method to just get the skin they want. I hope u reconsider and an actual solution beyond a forum post apology is put in place.

  • Basically Anet is saying, those who buy 30 packs, you're screwed if you think we're gonna add anything to the adoption licenses.

  • Khisanth.2948Khisanth.2948 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Freakshow.1809 said:
    I'm content with this. I still wish they would just do away with the RNG feature of the current adoption licences and allow you to pick and choose, but at least they will not being doing this again.......hopfully

    Also I will be screenshoting the OP for the future.

    Forgive, but never forget.

    @zealex.9410 said:

    @Critwrench.8432 said:
    This doesn't address any of the concerns at all.

    People want to buy the skins. They do not want to GAMBLE for the skins. Take the RNG off and raise the price of the skins IF YOU MUST, but I don't think you have to. Gliders were all 400 gems, more if it included a backpiece, I see no reason to deviate from that model.

    Furthermore, this controversy has raised ancillary concerns from "nitpicks" to "actual issues" amongst your playerbase, and you have addressed none of them.

    WHY are all default mounts 1 dye channel, when all the skins conveniently have 4?
    WHY are there no mount skins earnable as in-game rewards, in an expansion sorely lacking in medium- or long-term reasons to keep playing the maps?
    WHY do you have the resources to release thirty skins at once for the gemstore, but you can't throw one or two into a box that people like myself have paid up to eighty dollars for? I'm not saying I don't want to work for them, I'm not even saying I don't want to buy them. I'm saying that the current situation is the absolute worst for everyone involved, except perhaps your yarn-pawing kitten bottom line.

    It's greed, blatant and putrid, and your customers expect better than that from you.

    I dont believe its fair for the mounts to be on the same price as the glider since theres more work going into them.

    Many of them are just texture/fur pattern changes. That wouldn't have required much more work than the similarly retextured gliders(all the different colored hawk wings for example)

  • Gotta admit, I'm not ecstatic that the current mount license won't be changed. But I understand the meaning of compromise.

  • Thank you Mo for your Post, I do have one quiestion about it.

    "We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made,"

    Does that mean No changes at all or does it mean that you will be looking in to a way for us to buy skins from this pack directly?

  • @Oni.7451 said:
    Gotta admit, I'm not ecstatic that the current mount license won't be changed. But I understand the meaning of compromise.

    I just hope Mike understands the meaning of Bankruptcy, and finds his company heading that way if he doesn't fix this problem instead of trying to brush it away.

  • Oldirtbeard.9834Oldirtbeard.9834 Member ✭✭✭✭

    While I appreciate the statement I'll vote with my wallet and not contribute to RNG, it's a shame because my wife and I were interested in specific skins but it seems our money isn't meant for this product.

    Regarding that 2000 gem mount its too expensive for me to justify buying.

    You had the right idea with Spooky Mounts and I'll buy the next set as well.

    “The only watchmaker is the blind forces of physics.”
    ― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

  • urieldhynne.2743urieldhynne.2743 Member
    edited November 11, 2017

    "We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made"

    We need to understand that they are tied to a compromise with people who invested money in this system, a bad system, buy a lot of people already spended money on it and they need to protect them. Imagine if you spend money in another item that sell in certain way, and later they change it to a cheaper one because a lot of people (right or wrong) complain about it, you are going to lose trust in the company.

    What he said was: They CAN'T change it now, but they know the people don't want/like it and they are going to sell new skins in a more traditional way.

  • zealex.9410zealex.9410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ider.1276 said:

    @zealex.9410 said:
    I dont believe its fair for the mounts to be on the same price as the glider since theres more work going into them.

    The first gliders in gemstore were bat wing glider and exalted glider, both a complete remodel with new textures and effects. First mount skins were simple retextures of existing (spookey skins and most of lootbox pack) with a few mounts with tweeked model (some griffons, bunnies). The only complete remodel was warforged jackal for 2k gems. So I call kitten on that. The overall amount of skins are just mere recolor +particle effects, that are not that hard to do.

    The base glider was a piece of fabric stitched on our back while the mounts are detailed model. Also gliders hardly have animations except only a few.

  • Oldirtbeard.9834Oldirtbeard.9834 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Larathia.5284 said:
    Supporting development through microtransactions is fine. But guys, please remember that 2000 gems is not 'micro' anything, okay? If it translates to more than five dollars in Actual Cash Moneys, it is not 'micro'.

    No that is not true, it costs $25 to get 2000 gems.

    “The only watchmaker is the blind forces of physics.”
    ― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

  • zealex.9410zealex.9410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Daralii.8940 said:

    @zealex.9410 said:

    @StaggerLee.6397 said:
    Is a mount skin being $5 really considered discounted?

    Considering blizzard sells their skins for 25$ id say yes.

    WoW has hundreds of mounts obtainable through gameplay, and the majority of store mounts have unique skeletons. The forgehound is the closest thing to any Blizzard store mount(unique model, reused skeleton), and it's... $25. Don't pretend that ANet is any less predatory than Activision, EA, or any of their subsidiaries.

    No the store mounts are legit more flashy versions of existing mounts in game.

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.