How About Some Love For ArenaNet??

Recent events on Reddit regarding a certain other publisher certainly do put things in perspective, don't they? Have you guys seen the economy in that game? Full AAA price, with loot boxes on top that literally are pay to win. A bajillion different currencies and unlocks and crafting and cards and locked characters, all screaming at you to pay money to get passed the grind.

This really puts ArenaNet's "Here's 30 mounts have at it!" attitude into perspective. I'm not saying I agree with loot boxes in any form, but I sure am glad I threw my hat in with Gaille and her Krew, instead of those unbelievable ass hats at that other publisher.

So, how about some love for our chums at ArenaNet? Not everything they do is always super popular, but for goodness sake, they are at least still human!

Just because EA is much more evil, that doesn't make GW2's mount gambling box any less of a fiasco.

Whataboutism?

I actually agree. The mount skins are purely cosmetic to boot. You are not in any way weaker. Honestly, if you do not want to spend the cash just farm up the gold. You can earn gold at a really good rate in gw2.

@kurfu.5623 said:Just because EA is much more evil, that doesn't make GW2's mount gambling box any less of a fiasco.The situation was bad, but I feel like the responses that the BF2 Community got and the one we got are evidence enough that ANet knows they messed up and will make changes. With the whole EA thing becoming more of a true fiasco, it's easy for other developers to look at that and probably say it's not worth it.

@Aylaine.1036 said:

@kurfu.5623 said:Just because EA is much more evil, that doesn't make GW2's mount gambling box any less of a fiasco.The situation was bad, but I feel like the responses that the BF2 Community got and the one we got are evidence enough that ANet knows they messed up and will make changes. With the whole EA thing becoming more of a true fiasco, it's easy for other developers to look at that and probably say it's not worth it.

Yep. I'm not saying I agree with what ANet did, and I'm certainly never, ever buying any sort of "lootbox" or the right to open one, but looking at that other publisher's conduct, it's easy to see who the real villains are. And also, let's not have any more loot boxes eh guys?

What? You didn't want to say "#@" "%^#$" or "%(^%" ")**" "#@" !? And that's why that company won't be getting any cash from this gamer.

No not all gem store concepts are well received but again I think that ANet does a pretty good job keeping gem store sales of items that are convenience and cosmetic items. Granted its best to keep RNG items to the gamblers and make sure that players that are less interested in gambling have options to acquire directly. Have said before and will again, if you are going to put item in RNG containers than don't make them account bound so that players can fulfill others players interest in items that are randomly acquired. But your point is well received. Good gaming!

I've praised ANet many times when I think it is warranted. The best I can say about mount licenses is that they may well be good deals for gamblers, whales and completionists. For anyone else who has any interest in these particular mount skins, the setup is guaranteed to entice spending more than one might choose to were the skins individually priced at an amount the market would bear. In other words, the system is not friendly for what is likely a large consumer demographic.

The carefully-crafted response by Mr. O'Brien encourages the belief that the license sales were designed to be more friendly to consumers. I'd like to believe that. However, the sales plan was also carefully crafted. It comes complete with a supposedly consumer-friendly element (no repeats) which elicits purchasing more than one would be inclined to due to the psychological effect of the sunk-cost fallacy. Sunk-cost thinking is more likely to entice people to go beyond their personal limits than the gambler's fallacy does, except perhaps in people who regularly gamble. ANet completed the sales package with the limited-time bundle price and the anchoring effect of the 2K gem fiery goat skin. The overall marketing strategy, and the we-won't-do-this-again-in-the-next-planned-releases statement make it harder for me to believe ANet had overall consumer interests in mind.

So, the best I can do is to say, "Thanks for designing a mount skin purchase plan which is likely better for your big-ticket customers than other games do."

What I will also say is, "Thanks for avoiding the sale of in-game power in the gem store." That part I do appreciate.

@alceste.8712 said:I actually agree. The mount skins are purely cosmetic to boot. You are not in any way weaker.

It's not about power, its about introducing an expansion that is centered around mounts, purposefully making those mount only have 1 dye channel which is not very visible in most cases, and then only offering 30 out of 36 skins in a gamble box to try to force players who are eager to personalize their new mounts to waste their money on gambling. It is this kind of sleazy practice that people are mad about.

How about not?

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:The overall marketing strategy, and the we-won't-do-this-again-in-the-next-planned-releases statement make it harder for me to believe ANet had overall consumer interests in mind.

But only in the next planned releases I'll bet....

I so loved the original Guild Wars that I bought GW2 even though ArenaNet's lord and master, NCSoft, was shutting down City of Heroes. Never forget, never forgive. Ahem. GW2, despite the glaring lack of pretty much everything I love about Guild Wars, was still a pretty darned good game. Alas! Five years later, and today's ArenaNet graciously offers to sell us a CHANCE at something we might want, along with the option to get it for sure if we also buy all the stuff we don't want, and seems to think we should be happy they're willing to be so accommodating. Ain't nobody got time for that.

This old heart was full yesterday. Today, it's empty again, and they're gonna have to grind moar to refill it.

How about no, and we stop pretending that these types of business practices are ok. Developers and Companies should strive to make their service excellent not nickel and dime their consumers any given chance.

I don't think Anet deserve anything at this point. They used lootbox mechanic for one reason only - money. If all they care is money, we owe them nothing. More cynism towards anet actions from now on.

How many sith are there again ?

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:I've praised ANet many times when I think it is warranted.

Indeed.

I don't have a problem with loot boxes. However, near as I can tell, this is the only situation in which ANet hasn't offered any budget cosmetics outside of bundles.

• There are thousands of shiny armors & weapons in-game, including the free Fiery Dragon Sword (for GW1 HoM players) and lots of sub 10 gold ones.
• There are hundreds of dyes, including a half-dozen made free, a few made available through leveling.
• There is one outfit available in-game for currency and many budget outfits. None are available via RNG.
• The vast majority of BL weapon skins are supplied randomly and can be traded on the TP. For months or years, they cost roughly 200 gems worth of gold (from the gold→gems rate perspective).
• There are a variety of gliders, many of which are 400-500 gems, none of which are available via RNG, most of which don't require purchasing a bundle. Three are available in-game by completing (legendary) collections

In contrast, mount skins: 30 are only available via RNG for 400 gems (the price of budget outfits), one is available for 2000 gems (twice the price of the most expensive outfit, about triple the cost of the most expensive gliders), and five are festival-themed skins only available in a 1600-gem bundle.

I give ANet the benefit of the doubt that at some level, they thought this was a good compromise between the studio's need to make enough money to maintain the game in the manner to which we have become accustomed and making cool cosmetics available. But the implementation was so flawed that it undermined all of the good will that they have been steadily building up since HoT. I'm not even mad at them and I feel like they shot themselves in the foot on this.

tl;dr lovely is as lovely does; the mount skin pricing wasn't lovely.

Agree with OP, I think things were handled fine. We all have opinions, who's to say who is right or wrong in their opinion? Only the person stating it. RNG factor didn't bother me, and I'm not a gambler, and I'm not a whale. I'm just not picky. Whatever skin I'd get would be a better skin than what I was given, therefore no loss. I'm behind Obrian's statement after, and I think they responded the right way.

Anet is like the person I loved in College who eventually became a cynical, bullying, manipulating manager at a Debt Collection firm.

@Zionka.6897 said:Agree with OP, I think things were handled fine. We all have opinions, who's to say who is right or wrong in their opinion? Only the person stating it. RNG factor didn't bother me, and I'm not a gambler, and I'm not a whale. I'm just not picky. Whatever skin I'd get would be a better skin than what I was given, therefore no loss.

And do you think Anet made the inherent mount skins so blah and with only one dye channel on accident?

@Kheldorn.5123 said:I don't think Anet deserve anything at this point. They used lootbox mechanic for one reason only - money. If all they care is money, we owe them nothing. More cynism towards anet actions from now on.

Yes how dare they make a ploy to make more money so they can give us more content. Shame on them!

@Zakka.2153 said:How about no, and we stop pretending that these types of business practices are ok. Developers and Companies should strive to make their service excellent not nickel and dime their consumers any given chance.

While I agree with the first part, I do not agree with your second part. Given that Anet needs a constant stream of revenue and that the game is buy and play, not buy and continue to rent (via a monthy fee), I don't have a problem with them wanting people to pay for niceties. However, some niceties should NOT be a fracking lotto.

Honestly.. I have a feeling I'd be less ticked at them if they actually had mount lotto groupings, vs all or nothing that they did. The only thing they showed me was a carefully crafted legal scam and proved it by stating that they were not going to change it at all when in fact they could relatively easy.

@Djinn.9245 said:

@Zionka.6897 said:Agree with OP, I think things were handled fine. We all have opinions, who's to say who is right or wrong in their opinion? Only the person stating it. RNG factor didn't bother me, and I'm not a gambler, and I'm not a whale. I'm just not picky. Whatever skin I'd get would be a better skin than what I was given, therefore no loss.

I think it was intentional they did it that way. Just like how they did it with the basic gliders. It's a way for them to make money without making the cash shop pay to win.

@Loosifah.4738 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:I don't think Anet deserve anything at this point. They used lootbox mechanic for one reason only - money. If all they care is money, we owe them nothing. More cynism towards anet actions from now on.

At which point there is a note on mount box that the result of sale is new content?

Anet is already making money. And as mentioned in NCsoft report - they are doing better than expected. They are not starving or dying. They became greedy. Too many good will and reviews were given for this game at the release so they feel they are unique gem on the market. But they are oh so mistaken.

I have no love for ANet.

I do have some money for them, though. IF, and that's a big "if", they earn it.

Absolutely not.