Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Should FTP players get raptor for free?


Firebeard.1746

Recommended Posts

I wouldn't mind. But then again: I played without mounts as well ... and it is an interesting different experience. Better to enjoy some maps without mounts instead of quickly "rushing" them. Though for vistas and stuff the raptor only just won't make a big difference - except the movement speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@Atomos.7593 said:One benefit Anet may get from making a mount accessible to f2p players, such as the warclaw, might be more sales of mount skins from the gemstore. I, for one, would never have bought a skyscale skin if I was not able to use it because what would be the point.

I agree but I would also update the mount for Pve, maybe making the sniff on the mount like the sniff from the pig on the ranger pet :P to find truffles or to find other resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Atomos.7593 said:One benefit Anet may get from making a mount accessible to f2p players, such as the warclaw, might be more sales of mount skins from the gemstore. I, for one, would never have bought a skyscale skin if I was not able to use it because what would be the point.

So, just to be sure I understand you:You believe that making a mount accessible to players who are unwilling/unable to spend the small amount of money it costs to get PoF (even at the regular price of 30 $/Euro in the official store, not to mention discounted to often 15 $/Euro, not to mention 3rd party retailers where it is cheaper constantly), will suddenly find money to buy skins off the gem store?

Interesting idea...

Here is the harsh reality:The argument that players will spend money on the gem store has 1 requirement to even apply: a players ability or willingness to spend money in the first place. Free to play accounts are good for 1 thing: get players interested in actually BUYING the expansions, aka the actual game at this point in time. The amount of F2P players who start spending big money on pretty much anything before getting the actual game is minuscule at best, if at all existent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:One benefit Anet may get from making a mount accessible to f2p players, such as the warclaw, might be more sales of mount skins from the gemstore. I, for one, would never have bought a skyscale skin if I was not able to use it because what would be the point.

So, just to be sure I understand you:You believe that making a mount accessible to players who are unwilling/unable to spend the small amount of money it costs to get PoF (even at the regular price of 30 $/Euro in the official store, not to mention discounted to often 15 $/Euro, not to mention 3rd party retailers where it is cheaper constantly), will suddenly find money to buy skins off the gem store?

Interesting idea...

Here is the harsh reality:The argument that players will spend money on the gem store has 1 requirement to even apply: a players ability or willingness to spend money in the first place. Free to play accounts are good for 1 thing: get players interested in actually BUYING the expansions, aka the actual game at this point in time. The amount of F2P players who start spending big money on pretty much anything before getting the actual game is minuscule at best, if at all existent.

The mount skins are cheaper than the expansion and to some players may be more attractive. I have even seen many games make lots of money from sales of cosmetics alone. Not to mention that if they do buy a skin, they are probably more likely to buy the expansion later on because they would be more invested in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Atomos.7593 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:One benefit Anet may get from making a mount accessible to f2p players, such as the warclaw, might be more sales of mount skins from the gemstore. I, for one, would never have bought a skyscale skin if I was not able to use it because what would be the point.

So, just to be sure I understand you:You believe that making a mount accessible to players who are unwilling/unable to spend the small amount of money it costs to get PoF (even at the regular price of 30 $/Euro in the official store, not to mention discounted to often 15 $/Euro, not to mention 3rd party retailers where it is cheaper constantly), will suddenly find money to buy skins off the gem store?

Interesting idea...

Here is the harsh reality:The argument that players will spend money on the gem store has 1 requirement to even apply: a players ability or willingness to spend money in the first place. Free to play accounts are good for 1 thing: get players interested in actually BUYING the expansions, aka the actual game at this point in time. The amount of F2P players who start spending big money on pretty much anything before getting the actual game is minuscule at best, if at all existent.

The mount skins are cheaper than the expansion and to some players may be more attractive. I have even seen many games make lots of money from sales of cosmetics alone. Not to mention that if they do buy a skin, they are probably more likely to buy the expansion later on because they would be more invested in the game.

As mentioned by @Inculpatus cedo.9234, mount skins are half the current expansion, making them pretty much cost exactly 1 expansion given you get HoT for free with PoF at no reduced price.

Even IF, and that is a huge IF, a player decided to spend money on mount skins before getting PoF, is that really what we as players should want? Think about it, is the incentive to spend money on the gem store over content really a net benefit to this games development? Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely in favor of everyone spending their money as they wish, but is this the design decision we want?

On the one side we have players complaining about aggressive monetization, then the next moment suddenly this is a good thing?

The best thing a new or F2P player can do: is get the expansions asap, not for the mounts, but for the insane amount of actual game content they get. There is no reason to incentivize ANYTHING else before players spend money on the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:Well, it would be $15 for a Mount Skin; I'd guess if one were willing to spend that much for just one skin, it would make more sense to buy the expansion(s) for the same amount, or, at most, twice that.

Not everybody can afford or wants to buy the expansions straight away. Other than adding mounts and gliding I don't find anything else really attractive in the expansions. The maps and story are pretty dull imo.

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Atomos.7593 said:One benefit Anet may get from making a mount accessible to f2p players, such as the warclaw, might be more sales of mount skins from the gemstore. I, for one, would never have bought a skyscale skin if I was not able to use it because what would be the point.

So, just to be sure I understand you:You believe that making a mount accessible to players who are unwilling/unable to spend the small amount of money it costs to get PoF (even at the regular price of 30 $/Euro in the official store, not to mention discounted to often 15 $/Euro, not to mention 3rd party retailers where it is cheaper constantly), will suddenly find money to buy skins off the gem store?

Interesting idea...

Here is the harsh reality:The argument that players will spend money on the gem store has 1 requirement to even apply: a players ability or willingness to spend money in the first place. Free to play accounts are good for 1 thing: get players interested in actually BUYING the expansions, aka the actual game at this point in time. The amount of F2P players who start spending big money on pretty much anything before getting the actual game is minuscule at best, if at all existent.

The mount skins are cheaper than the expansion and to some players may be more attractive. I have even seen many games make lots of money from sales of cosmetics alone. Not to mention that if they do buy a skin, they are probably more likely to buy the expansion later on because they would be more invested in the game.

As mentioned by Inculpatus cedo.9234, mount skins are half the current expansion, making them pretty much cost exactly 1 expansion given you get HoT for free with PoF at no reduced price.

Even IF, and that is a huge IF, a player decided to spend money on mount skins before getting PoF, is that really what we as players should want? Think about it, is the incentive to spend money on the gem store over content really a net benefit to this games development?

One the one side we have players complaining about aggressive monetization, then the next moment suddenly this is a good thing?

The best thing a new or free to play player can do is get the expansions asap, not for the mounts, but for the insane amount of actual game content they get. There is no reason to incentivize ANYTHING else before players spend money on the game.

See my comment above. I am not thinking about it from a player perspective. I am looking at it from a game development perspective that Anet will have. If they can make more money, why not? You may find the expansions worth purchasing and so do I. But not everyone may. As for monetization, there are many skins already available for purchase in the game so this wouldn't change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The base raptor, with the short jump, no mob grab, and no boosted dmg, or an equivalent or slightly weaker mount ....

You feel that that's giving too much? The whole point of ftp accs is try-b4-u-buy advertising.

I bought hot only after my first char hit lvl80, and I felt that I would probably stay on, and so bought the expansion. I perfectly understood the tp limits and such for ftp accs. But I might not have continued if I was lagging badly behind mounted players in the same map while doing the same content. That's the difference between 5yrs ago and now: Same content, different player environment.

And I am absolutely in the camp of keeping full mount utility in core maps for Exp accs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Teratus.2859 said:

@"Obfuscate.6430" said:I think it's a safe bet to do you best to support the game. Path of Fire is often on sale and recently has come bundles with Heart of Thorns.You can experience mounts for free during festivals but they are not needed to experience the core game.Also, in a lot of ways, the core game is like a big tutorial and maybe it's good not to be crippled by a "need" for mounts before you've even explored much on your own.

The problem comes at the end game.Once players without expansions have finished the story and stuff they often find it difficult to keep up with event chains and champ farms etc because of the large mobility difference between mounted and mountless players, the Warclaw being made available to unlock for the core game players would help to diminish this difference but not completely eliminate it.. that in itself can also serve as incentive for people to buy PoF as well to get the faster Raptor mount now that they've had a good taste of what mounts bring to the open world game, and the Warclaw itself also serves as incentive for people to try out WvW as well which is desperately in need of a population boost.

The Warclaw will suffice for a while though and players can make do with it through pre PoF content so they won't feel as pressured to rush ahead and unlock the Raptor, potentially spoiling the story for themselves.It's all pros from what I can see and I really can't think of any reason why Anet should't make this change.

This is where I think it's important to make a distinction between the core game/levelling experience and free accounts. The OP said free players should get access to mounts, but it sounds like the suggestion is more focused on people who haven't yet reached the expansion content, regardless of the type of account they have.

To my mind if someone is playing on a free account and they've reached level 80, completed the personal story, maybe done map completion and now they're looking for more content to do and finding it frustrating that most of it is locked to them, or would be easier/more fun with mounts and other expansion features then the solution already exists: they can buy the game and get tons more content, mounts, gliding, all the other masteries, elite specs and all the Play-for-Free restrictions removed from their account. The free version is basically an extended demo and if you like the demo but want more the solution is always to get the full game.

I realise "buy the game" isn't always an easy solution and there's plenty of valid reasons that may not be possible for someone, but it's equally valid to say Anet is a business, they need to get money from somewhere so they have to limit how much of their product they give away for free. If you've gotten to the end of the personal story and you're looking at end-game activities then you've already gotten dozens or hundreds of hours of gameplay for free, so it's a very good deal even if you have to stop at that point because you can't afford the full game.

Offering mounts to all players at low levels, before they can start PoF and unlock the raptor even if they own the expansion, is an entirely different consideration which I think has both pros and cons. The core game world is not designed for mounts and there's a good chance you'll miss a lot if you get into the habit of rushing through it as quickly as possible right from the start. Not just dynamic events that you won't have time to notice or material nodes and other useful things you won't see/stop for, but also basic lessons in how to navigate the world. I've already seen people getting totally stuck if they can't reach a place using mounts, even if the solution is 'that's because the PoI is inside the building, you have to dismount and walk through the door'. That type of thinking just doesn't come into it if you get into the habit of using mounts for everything, all the time. It might seem like it's making the game easier, but by going through it faster you can actually make a lot of things harder to complete.

It might be worth offering a mount rental service outside of races so new and low level players on all types of accounts can try them out and get a sense of what they've got to look forward to, but I think it would be a bad idea to give everyone a raptor right from the start when the game just isn't designed for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Danikat.8537 said:

@"Obfuscate.6430" said:I think it's a safe bet to do you best to support the game. Path of Fire is often on sale and recently has come bundles with Heart of Thorns.You can experience mounts for free during festivals but they are not needed to experience the core game.Also, in a lot of ways, the core game is like a big tutorial and maybe it's good not to be crippled by a "need" for mounts before you've even explored much on your own.

The problem comes at the end game.Once players without expansions have finished the story and stuff they often find it difficult to keep up with event chains and champ farms etc because of the large mobility difference between mounted and mountless players, the Warclaw being made available to unlock for the core game players would help to diminish this difference but not completely eliminate it.. that in itself can also serve as incentive for people to buy PoF as well to get the faster Raptor mount now that they've had a good taste of what mounts bring to the open world game, and the Warclaw itself also serves as incentive for people to try out WvW as well which is desperately in need of a population boost.

The Warclaw will suffice for a while though and players can make do with it through pre PoF content so they won't feel as pressured to rush ahead and unlock the Raptor, potentially spoiling the story for themselves.It's all pros from what I can see and I really can't think of any reason why Anet should't make this change.

Offering mounts to all players at low levels, before they can start PoF and unlock the raptor even if they own the expansion, is an entirely different consideration which I think has both pros and cons. The core game world is not designed for mounts and there's a good chance you'll miss a lot if you get into the habit of rushing through it as quickly as possible right from the start. Not just dynamic events that you won't have time to notice or material nodes and other useful things you won't see/stop for, but also basic lessons in how to navigate the world. I've already seen people getting totally stuck if they can't reach a place using mounts, even if the solution is 'that's because the PoI is inside the building, you have to dismount and walk through the door'. That type of thinking just doesn't come into it if you get into the habit of using mounts for everything, all the time. It might seem like it's making the game easier, but by going through it faster you can actually make a lot of things harder to complete.

This is a good point. As a new player I would be confused by this from seeing players with mounts running around the core Tyria and HoT maps. When someone tells me the mounts were added in all areas in the game with a later expansion, I would wonder why the mounts are allowed to be used in the older areas if they weren't designed for mounts and can make some things trivial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F2P players should not get access to mounts (festivals excluding due to races, but then again there are rental mounts there. Race tracks in open world exluding as well in case those rentals are available to F2P atm which I don't know). Mounts take away the game's experience of exploring on foot, accessing events, gathering, combat with mobs... All things skipped by just running through with a mount. It also makes maps feel smaller than they are in core. If a player wants gliding or mounts they can buy an expansion as they simply are expansion content and that's what players have bought these expansions for. The reason mounts are allowed in older area's is because its a quality of life item (most players have completed core maps without mount so they don't have to do hearts or explore things for the same time etc. Ofcourse there are players that did everything with mounts but those decided to buy an expansion, do the expansion story to get the rapter and then play. Up to them ofcourse, but it takes away the experience of learning how to combat, exploration etc. It is not that travelling in core map is difficult as you have waypoints as soon as you reach the area of one. I also do not think players would purchase a skin for a mount if they have access to a free mount. First of all, the rentals as we have them currently, you cannot change its appearance as far as I know as you technically do not own the mount (it goes poof upon leaving a zone, after x time (perhaps even still if you dismount but I think they changed that). The expansions are also close to the cost of a mount skin so then these players could as well just buy the expansion and get the mounts with them (which all have basic skins). F2P players cannot use the gold to gem exchange so real f2p players will never be able to buy a skin to start with via ingame means (unless they buy the expansions ofcourse. Having the warclaw as a rental for F2P is also a bad move since a warclaw in pve has no skills and is just a ride like in any other mmo (with the same speed as running around by foot). If this is the impression a F2P player gets for mounts in GW2 o boy, since mounts in GW2 are way different than the average mount in mmo land (mounts here are not pure transport but a means to fight and access certain area's etc as well). Who would even buy any expansion if it didn't have special features like mounts and gliding exclusives? I guess a lot less people than do now. We also should not forget that originally the game was not a F2P game as starters, nor that HoT came with PoF. The starting player is lucky to have 2 expansions for the price of one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Astyrah.4015" said:they should just make the warclaw unlockable in WvW for f2p players without PoF that way we encourage more people to join WvW and the f2p players can get their taste of mounts without touching or modifying or devaluing Raptor (and other PoF mounts) or requiring them to buy the expansion.... also, there are other threads like this. about mounts, about how for free to play players - especially new steam players - to get to experience mounts without leveling to 80 and buying PoF.

such as these:https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/113643/make-mounts-accessible-without-butchering-the-story-immersionhttps://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/113411/mount-rents-on-f2p-base-maps-on-steam-releasehttps://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/108023/new-accounts-and-mount-availability-solutionand more..

refer to the said threads or search the forums for more info or discussions and opinions about the topic.

I think this is the rockstar solution that would require minimal labor cost to actualize. Five thumbs up. Don't ask where I got the extra thumbs. Nobody's day will be improved for knowing such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Atomos.7593 said:

@"Obfuscate.6430" said:I think it's a safe bet to do you best to support the game. Path of Fire is often on sale and recently has come bundles with Heart of Thorns.You can experience mounts for free during festivals but they are not needed to experience the core game.Also, in a lot of ways, the core game is like a big tutorial and maybe it's good not to be crippled by a "need" for mounts before you've even explored much on your own.

The problem comes at the end game.Once players without expansions have finished the story and stuff they often find it difficult to keep up with event chains and champ farms etc because of the large mobility difference between mounted and mountless players, the Warclaw being made available to unlock for the core game players would help to diminish this difference but not completely eliminate it.. that in itself can also serve as incentive for people to buy PoF as well to get the faster Raptor mount now that they've had a good taste of what mounts bring to the open world game, and the Warclaw itself also serves as incentive for people to try out WvW as well which is desperately in need of a population boost.

The Warclaw will suffice for a while though and players can make do with it through pre PoF content so they won't feel as pressured to rush ahead and unlock the Raptor, potentially spoiling the story for themselves.It's all pros from what I can see and I really can't think of any reason why Anet should't make this change.

Offering mounts to all players at low levels, before they can start PoF and unlock the raptor even if they own the expansion, is an entirely different consideration which I think has both pros and cons. The core game world is not designed for mounts and there's a good chance you'll miss a lot if you get into the habit of rushing through it as quickly as possible right from the start. Not just dynamic events that you won't have time to notice or material nodes and other useful things you won't see/stop for, but also basic lessons in how to navigate the world. I've already seen people getting totally stuck if they can't reach a place using mounts, even if the solution is 'that's because the PoI is inside the building, you have to dismount and walk through the door'. That type of thinking just doesn't come into it if you get into the habit of using mounts for everything, all the time. It might seem like it's making the game easier, but by going through it faster you can actually make a lot of things harder to complete.

This is a good point. As a new player I would be confused by this from seeing players with mounts running around the core Tyria and HoT maps. When someone tells me the mounts were added in all areas in the game with a later expansion, I would wonder why the mounts are allowed to be used in the older areas if they weren't designed for mounts and can make some things trivial.

Trust me, you never want to experience HoT Maguuma maps without mounts. It's awful. I will just re-iterate that I strongly feel F2P players should get a mount at some point because the game didn't feel complete Vs. other MMOs until i got one. F2P is basically an advertisement for buying the expansions and Anet should consider that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Firebeard.1746 said:

@"Obfuscate.6430" said:I think it's a safe bet to do you best to support the game. Path of Fire is often on sale and recently has come bundles with Heart of Thorns.You can experience mounts for free during festivals but they are not needed to experience the core game.Also, in a lot of ways, the core game is like a big tutorial and maybe it's good not to be crippled by a "need" for mounts before you've even explored much on your own.

The problem comes at the end game.Once players without expansions have finished the story and stuff they often find it difficult to keep up with event chains and champ farms etc because of the large mobility difference between mounted and mountless players, the Warclaw being made available to unlock for the core game players would help to diminish this difference but not completely eliminate it.. that in itself can also serve as incentive for people to buy PoF as well to get the faster Raptor mount now that they've had a good taste of what mounts bring to the open world game, and the Warclaw itself also serves as incentive for people to try out WvW as well which is desperately in need of a population boost.

The Warclaw will suffice for a while though and players can make do with it through pre PoF content so they won't feel as pressured to rush ahead and unlock the Raptor, potentially spoiling the story for themselves.It's all pros from what I can see and I really can't think of any reason why Anet should't make this change.

Offering mounts to all players at low levels, before they can start PoF and unlock the raptor even if they own the expansion, is an entirely different consideration which I think has both pros and cons. The core game world is not designed for mounts and there's a good chance you'll miss a lot if you get into the habit of rushing through it as quickly as possible right from the start. Not just dynamic events that you won't have time to notice or material nodes and other useful things you won't see/stop for, but also basic lessons in how to navigate the world. I've already seen people getting totally stuck if they can't reach a place using mounts, even if the solution is 'that's because the PoI is inside the building, you have to dismount and walk through the door'. That type of thinking just doesn't come into it if you get into the habit of using mounts for everything, all the time. It might seem like it's making the game easier, but by going through it faster you can actually make a lot of things harder to complete.

This is a good point. As a new player I would be confused by this from seeing players with mounts running around the core Tyria and HoT maps. When someone tells me the mounts were added in all areas in the game with a later expansion, I would wonder why the mounts are allowed to be used in the older areas if they weren't designed for mounts and can make some things trivial.

Trust me, you never want to experience HoT Maguuma maps without mounts. It's awful. I will just re-iterate that I strongly feel F2P players should get a mount at some point because the game didn't feel complete Vs. other MMOs until i got one. F2P is basically an advertisement for buying the expansions and Anet should consider that.

Yeah that's true for HoT. The navigation in some HoT maps is terrible imo. I am currently going through the HoT story on my rev. This time I have the skyscale and it makes things so much easier, especially in Tangled Depths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, mounts should DEFINITELY be locked behind PoF. Core Tyria isn't designed for them and they break the maps in certain areas, plus they let people skip TONS of content. While an experienced player will understandably want to skip stuff they've done a million times, that option should not be available to a newbie or FTP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Players should not get access to expansion feature unless they have said expansion. Exceptions to mounts have been made for the festival beetle races.

For those wanting to avoid spoilers, create a new chat tab which will not show NPC dialogue and also turn off audio. That should keep things mostly spoiler free.

Also bear in mind that Steam players most likely have not played the game before so they won’t know the QoL improvements that mounts bring. Not having one will not affect them.

Also, I don’t believe that new players would be going around chasing events like we do for the dailies. Not having a mount will not affect them and it’s unlikely that they’ll be playing a map which has that daily.

As for the impact that mounts have on getting to and tagging events, it’s fairly minimal. With waypoints, you can get to events fairly quickly regardless as to whether you have a mount or not. Tagging events will, have have always been, an issue due to power creep. Yes mounts have engage skills but the issue was present well before them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the whole idea of expansions to generate a huge amount of income to make it through the drought until next expansion?????

Why would they give expansion stuff away for free.I mean we are talking what ? $29? I got thousands of hours out of those $29. There is no other hobby that comes close to that ratio.If you want to play a game, pay for it. What's wrong with you people?

I can't believe you guy make me defend A-Net for once

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...