Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]


Recommended Posts

@Fallesafe.5932 said:

@feroxeu.7416 said:this is a carebear game. Anyone who says they don't feel rewarded are just numb due to the amount of rewards they recieve. Facts: You get rewarded for losing. You get rewarded for winning. You get rewarded for logging in.

And it's all garbage. I wish I had a giant snow-shovel to throw it all into the delete-incinerator at the same time. This game absolutely showers you with trash while offering you nothing of any real value. If came up to you every day, and gave you a milk-crate full of ribbons, and colored drinking straws, and chewing gum, and number 2 pencils how long would it take before you started getting annoyed?

To use your analogy, to get a bunch of "useless stuff" .. I do hobby crafts and such, Pintrst style junk, i(With a welding torch, but still artsy crafts stuff) in case you are wondering, so, if I was say.. a member of a Hobby Shop, and as a customer they sent me a milk crate full of ribbons, erasers, and the like, I'd start crafting with it, seeing what I could make, maybe try some new things and see what comes of it.

In the end, much in the same way I peruse the isles of Home Depot and Harbor Freight, you have chosen to play this game, so there is in part some small desire on your part to get that crate of stuff, even if you feel that it is junk, you still pursed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Azure The Heartless.3261" said:Wait. Hold on.

Isn't this slightly better than the black lion chest? I mean yes, you can gamble for a skin you want and -not- get it, but it then removes that option from the pool. Eventually you will have larger and larger chances to get what you want. If you liked black lion chests for super rare/rare weapon skins, this is actually slightly better than that.

I'm not saying it still doesnt -reek- of lootbox, but the lootboxes that contained rare skins didnt progressively have better rates the more gems you spent.

Lets say they put these in the black lion chest as rare drops, as was mentioned before. I don't think there would be even a fraction of the backlash that I'm seeing here if they did. There was some backlash when the hydra skin was introduced, because it was tied to account, but that only really hurts the people who dont buy the keys in the first place.

Iiiiiii think I'm on the fence about this. It would be one thing if we could get dupes, but I'm going to have to weigh the "you will always get something you dont have" side of it. Because that way you are guaranteed what you want at some point, instead of potentially spending and spending and never getting what you want.

There are a some different factors here that I think deviates this issue (for a lot of people) from BLCs

  • Most of the BLC items that people want are also tradeable on the TP which gives at the very least an alternative method of acquiring them. BLC keys can be earned in game.
  • The price difference - 1BLC Key is 125 gems vs 400 for a shot at the mount roulette wheel. True, the mount roulette wheel isn't going to give you another bank access, but if you dislike the skin, then that difference will be almost meaningless. (TBF, I personally think the BLC keys are way over priced for the odds)
  • There was quite a bit of anger with BLC 'exclusives' - meaning things that could only be gotten through a drop, or BLC skins that weren't tradeable on the TP
  • There are no other mount skins available in game and the only other mount skin available is significantly higher in cost in the gem store
  • The base mount skins only come with 1 dye channel and this does feel like a decision that was made to push people to the cash store. I remember a lot of comments about the spooky mounts of people buying them specifically to get the dye channels and then playing around with dyes to get the best look while 'hiding' the bones.
  • There is a diminishing return with mount skins. Sure you get a new one each time, but how feasible is it that people will use all 30 skins? or even 20? If you luck out and get the skins you really want in relatively few rolls, it will feel like a good investment. If you don't, then it won't.
  • The gaming industry on the whole is generating a lot of ill will with lootboxes, especially in games that you buy and then have to pay extra to get the boxes/keys/whatever. Even though the skins are not required for gameplay, it's been pointed out and I think has some merit, that a significant portion of GW2 endgame is Fashion Wars and mounts are the hot, new fashion accessory.
  • People just bought PoF less than two months ago, this particular loot box package at $100+ dollars feel even more like a cash grab when a lot people just forked over $30 and up to Anet.
  • The general feel (which may be somewhat subjective) that the best skins - weapons, armor, gliders, and now mounts - are only available via the gem store, leaving in game rewards anemic and/or little more than 'farm gold to buy gems to trade in to get what you want'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@kharmin.7683 said:

@wingedsoul.9406 said:

New mount Skins with different dye channels for 400 Gems are super ok. If you want all Legendary Mount Skins, you will have to pay much more (as always).I think most in this thread are fine with paying more for "Legendary". It's the RNG that's at issue.

But why??? This is positive RNG!!Ecto- and Pre-Gambling is negative RNG, because if you paid the highest expected amount of gold, you can still end up with nothing.Here you know the maximum amount of Gold, you will have to pay, if you want the super awesome mount skin.

Our feedback should be "The lootbox-concept here is cool. We just don't like, that you started it with mount skins." or something like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is ridiculousWhy would you make the skins RNG? It's just a way to try get a few more gems out of me, if you could just buy the skins you want how you normally can with armour and weapon skins then it'd be fine. But putting and RNG on things makes me wary of giving you any more of my money that I already have, I want to be sure that I can comfortably give you money for expansions or those few extra gems I need for a cool skin that's leaving the store, without having to worry about it being RNG and not getting what I want. What's next, RNG Costumes, RNG Weapons, RNG Utilities? Step up your game Guild Wars, this is disgusting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Azure The Heartless.3261" said:Wait. Hold on.

Isn't this slightly better than the black lion chest?
I mean yes, you can gamble for a skin you want and -not- get it, but it then removes that option from the pool. Eventually you will have larger and larger chances to get what you want. If you liked black lion chests for super rare/rare weapon skins, this is actually slightly better than that.

I'm not saying it still doesnt -reek- of lootbox, but the lootboxes that contained rare skins didnt progressively have better rates the more gems you spent.

Lets say they put these in the black lion chest as rare drops, as was mentioned before. I don't think there would be even a fraction of the backlash that I'm seeing here if they did. There was some backlash when the hydra skin was introduced, because it was tied to account, but that only really hurts the people who dont buy the keys in the first place.

Iiiiiii think I'm on the fence about this. It would be one thing if we could get dupes, but I'm going to have to weigh the "you will always get something you dont have" side of it. Because that way you are guaranteed what you want at some point, instead of potentially spending and spending and never getting what you want.

There are a some different factors here that I think deviates this issue (for a lot of people) from BLCs
  • Most of the BLC items that people want are also tradeable on the TP which gives at the very least an alternative method of acquiring them. BLC keys can be earned in game.
  • The price difference - 1BLC Key is 125 gems vs 400 for a shot at the mount roulette wheel. True, the mount roulette wheel isn't going to give you another bank access, but if you dislike the skin, then that difference will be almost meaningless. (TBF, I personally think the BLC keys are way over priced for the odds)
  • There was quite a bit of anger with BLC 'exclusives' - meaning things that could only be gotten through a drop, or BLC skins that weren't tradeable on the TP
  • There are no other mount skins available in game and the only other mount skin available is significantly higher in cost in the gem store
  • The base mount skins only come with 1 dye channel and this does feel like a decision that was made to push people to the cash store. I remember a lot of comments about the spooky mounts of people buying them specifically to get the dye channels and then playing around with dyes to get the best look while 'hiding' the bones.
  • There is a diminishing return with mount skins. Sure you get a new one each time, but how feasible is it that people will use all 30 skins? or even 20? If you luck out and get the skins you really want in relatively few rolls, it will feel like a good investment. If you don't, then it won't.
  • The gaming industry on the whole is generating a lot of ill will with lootboxes, especially in games that you buy and then have to pay extra to get the boxes/keys/whatever. Even though the skins are not required for gameplay, it's been pointed out and I think has some merit, that a significant portion of GW2 endgame is Fashion Wars and mounts are the hot, new fashion accessory.
  • People just bought PoF less than two months ago, this particular loot box package at $100+ dollars feel even more like a cash grab when a lot people just forked over $30 and up to Anet.
  • The general feel (which may be somewhat subjective) that the best skins - weapons, armor, gliders, and now mounts - are only available via the gem store, leaving in game rewards anemic and/or little more than 'farm gold to buy gems to trade in to get what you want'.

Interesting points. Keeping an eye on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@wingedsoul.9406 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:

@wingedsoul.9406 said:

New mount Skins with different dye channels for 400 Gems are super ok. If you want all Legendary Mount Skins, you will have to pay much more (as always).I think most in this thread are fine with paying more for "Legendary". It's the RNG that's at issue.

But why??? This is positive RNG!!Ecto- and Pre-Gambling is negative RNG, because if you paid the highest expected amount of gold, you can still end up with nothing.Here you know the maximum amount of Gold, you will have to pay, if you want the super awesome mount skin.

Our feedback should be "The lootbox-concept here is cool. We just don't like, that you started it with mount skins." or something like this.

You would know the maximum amount you would have to pay if each mount was a set price. There would be the added bonus of getting the exact one you wanted.Plus it would likely attract a wider audience willing to pay rather than a smaller sub section willing to keep paying until they got all they wanted (speculation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's nice to see some people with reason here. First of all I bought a few of these tickets, while I got some nice skins, I also didn't get a couple of the skins I wanted. Am I mad about it? Heck no. Here's the thing, I knew what I was getting into, and I was fine with it. I saw there were multiple skins from the tickets that I liked, and I felt like it was worth the gems even though I didn't get all of them. At the end of the day, it's only cosmetics and offer no real gameplay advantage.

If you don't like the rng or don't think the risk-vs-rewards is not worth it, then don't buy it and wait for them to release other mount skins that don't have rng. I would save my outrage for if all future mount skins will come in rng tickets like these. I don't need to have everything in the game/gemstore to enjoy the game, only have like 6 glider skins out of the however many they released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the company needs to make money. Path of Fire sales have probably hit the post-launch decline. Employees need to be paid and they have earned it. The issue is how do you generate more revenue without upsetting the player-base. I know, I know.. any decision you make seems to upset any number of players. Finding a way to make money, to continue making this great game is difficult from the business side. Which is why I think the studio should try to view it from the player's side. Imagine your company consists of MMO players without any developer history, with various levels of income. What decisions would you want your preferred MMO developer to make for your favorite game?

Many players, inlcuding myself enjoy your games because you broke the MMO mold. You made a AAA title without a monthly fee. You implemented player and consumer friendly methods of progression. You considered that having fun does not mean grinding for gear, loot or the nicest items in the game. The implementation of continuous content has had ups and downs but overall has worked well. ArenaNet, you are in a small demographic of studios, that aren't indie, making genuinely good gameplay.

I want to re-iterate, ArenaNet, you need to make money. Other players have offered some great ideas for different avenues to pursue this. I've spent over $1k for gems over the past five years to support this studio. I've been playing Guild Wars since 2005. Keep up the great work, don't let the negative reaction dampen your spirits but realize you are better than the lootbox craze. We want mount skins and we want to support you. We want it to be fun, reasonable and consumer-friendly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most players would probably use 1 or 2 skins per mount. Some people would use 1 mount most of the time just because of the look alone.

Right now it is about 12000 Gems for all 30 skins, but you can't choose the few you like.

ANet could have a bundle per mount type for 2400 Gems; so if I use Gryphon's most, I could buy all Gryphon skins for 2400 Gems

Further more ANet could sell individual skins for 700 Gems, making it a better value to buy bundles, but still giving an opportunity for people to just get that 1 skin they really want.

This also gives everyone the chance to get all the skins eventually as they earn Gold, or they buy or earn Gems (even tho they will end up paying more for them)

Just some ideas of the top of my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One voice, but I'm firmly in the "This system would be absolutely fine if the skins were tradeable as with many other Black Lion items" camp. Pay a little more in gold so gamblers can profit, get exactly the skin you like. Works with dyes, skins, minis. Why not mounts? Really don't understand why it wasn't set up this way int he first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1st of all, full disclosure, I bought the bundle, not the individual packages (which would have cost more). The reasons why are arbitrary, but suffice to say I came into some income I wasn't expecting. My thoughts follow below.

There are a couple things that muddy the waters of the discussions here and I'm not sure if these have been talked about, but here we go. In no particular order:

  • An obvious lack of skin tiers. Many companies that have similar systems - looking at you Riot Games (League of Legends) & Dota 2 (Valve) in this instance - have very clear distinctions of what skins are available at what price and what may be included for each corresponding price tier. These distinctions may be animations, sounds, voiceover (for the characters of that game), or crazy things like skins that change appearance drastically and evolve over time (Pulsefire Ezreal).

Why is this important?

I know many of you are looking at a handful of skins for each mount - or even fewer - and those are the only ones of which you're interested. Without making the pricing or other distinction that some skins are clearly more nuanced and/or elaborate than others, the marketing team or whoever made the directive from the top down has thrown in every single skin into the same price range. This is obviously a error in judgement and quite literally feelsbadman.

Take the Forged Warhound skin. That is a complete change in the model, the sounds used, the animation for the movement skill (I haven't confirmed this).

Some of the skins in the random packages also contain one or more of these elements combined, though very few, if any are fundamentally changed in their model or rig to the extent of the Forged Doggo (Warhound).

An important caveat here, is that at least League of Legends (that I know of) does give you the option to gift a "Mystery Skin" to a friend as a surprise "Oh boy, I wonder what I'll get" sort of gimmick. I think it works better in this regard.

  • A lack of distinct bundling options. The spooky mounts pack was a pack that was pretty reasonably priced compared to the single mount skin for the Forged Doggo that's currently a whooping 2k gems. It would have been wise to include a way to organize each of the "families" of newly introduced skins in such a way. This also touches back on the tiering issue, so I'll just stop it there.

But finally...

This is all coming to a head over optional items people want to purchase, but do not have the option to do so in a way that allows them to do it without financial collateral damage. For this, I totally agree that the marketing strategy is more than a bit predatory/greedy.

BUT! It would be hasty to blanket the blame without hearing from the pertinent party in charge of this MountGate fiasco.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@PopeUrban.2578 said:

@pah.4931 said:I don't know why I have to keep saying this. If this method did not make more money for Anet, they wouldn't do it. As a business, why would you NOT choose to do what makes more money?

Because businesses are made of people, people aren't immune to making mistakes, and on average people often prioritize shot term gain at the expense of long term loss. As a business, why would Microsoft try and create a competing music player when the ipod dominated the market even though they already had a stable product and business model? The Zune is a great example here. It was an objectively pretty good piece of tech, but Microsoft misunderstood the market they were trying to break in to and lost a bunch of money in stead of doubling down on the one they were already been successful in.

Companies don't TRY to lose money, but companies often DO lose money by placing the desires of the company for profit above the products or services that their customers actually want. In the case of GW2 specifically, they jumped on a bandwagon early, like everyone else, and failed at their "buy once play forever because we have microtransactions" model so hard they started selling expansions again to subsidize falling gem store profits.

AND THEY LEARNED NOTHING from that experience. And doubled down on the gem store even after making a monetization move that should have rendered it obsolete, specifically because they kitten it because they were investing even more in the business model that was already failing them. People noticed. Go back to the old forums and check out the player responses to HoT, how disappointed they were with its value for the asking price.

As for the MMO market being different, that doesn't really apply to this discussion. Part of the reason players have gravitated to the most successful current MMOs is specifically because they're more complete experiences than the free to play alternatives with even more predatory cash shops than this one. The reason GW2 is doing better than a lot of games is specifically because it relies less on microtransactions, not because it keeps adding more of them.

The industry as a whole moved to microtransactions specifically because they saw how much money it raked in, true, but I'll remind you that the industry did the same thing after WoW's improbable success, attempting to create a whole range of subscription based WoW clones until they learned that simply doing a thing because it makes someone else money does not guarantee your competing product will also make money. How many of these new CCGs inspired by hearthstone's success do you think will be around in five years? How many games do you think will have the sheer audactiy to tie progression directly to loot box economies like battlefront 2? Businesses love to look at numbers in a vaccum and in doing so make a lot of costly mistakes. The gaming industry specifically makes SO MANY costly mistakes because more often than not the people in charge of most of the money have very little understanding of their audience and how fickle that audience is in an extremely competitive market.

The MMO market is smaller today specifically because companies invested millions in products and business models that were derivative to chase profits. They saw short term gain from WoW's example, then lost a lot of money when they realized that just because what someone else is doing is working, doesn't mean your consumers want two of that same thing. The thing you're saying excuses increasingly more customer hostile business models is the result of customer hostile business models. Attempting to replicate some else's profit numbers while simultaneously attempting to pull customers away from the thing you are emulating is why MMOs are in a downturn. Its why everyone is trying and failing to emulate the success of Marvel's cinematic universe. People who don't understand their customers don't understand that movies and video games are not toasters. In entertainment, specifically, can't just make the same product cheaper and expect the consumer to see it as a good value, and you can't charge the users for a luxury model with options and expect them to accept the increased cost.

If what they were doing was working... they would have simply sold skins at a similar price point to gliders. The fact that they've attempted to implement a scheme specifically designed to cost the customer more on average to obtain a similar "optional" microtransaction indicates that what they were doing is NOT making them money as well as they expected, and their response to that problem is "let's try and force them to give us more money since we're not selling as many as we want" in stead of "lets figure out what they want to buy and sell them that"

This is why the term 'exploitative' is often used in these discussions. Rather than attempting to create new customers and retain existing once by offering a better product or service, they're banking on upscaling the cost for what they believe is a captive audience. They're raising the price of bread because they're the only deli in town, and they know you love sandwiches, which only works as long as long as you don't get tired of sandwiches made with increasingly more kitten bread and decide to switch to soup. Or, god forbid... make your OWN sandwiches.

"You people have history books? Open any one of 'em and it'll tell you: short-term gains bring long-term trouble."Rytlock Brimstone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@wingedsoul.9406 said:But why??? This is positive RNG!!In what way is this positive RNG? If consumer A has no interest in product B, C, D or E and the only interest he has is product A, then he's at a net loss. The chance he will get B, C, D or E is much higher than what he actually wants, product A. In this situation he's spending $120 gold, or however much 400 gems is at the time, for something he doesn't want.

Ecto- and Pre-Gambling is negative RNG, because if you paid the highest expected amount of gold, you can still end up with nothing.This would be valid if there was an option to hone in on a specific mount or skin, in its current form, the only way to do that is go through the 30 mount/skin gauntlet, that's a joke.

Here you know the maximum amount of Gold, you will have to pay, if you want the super awesome mount skin.Certain skins are super awesome, the rest are quite average. I would certainly agree that 400 gems for even the base line skins could be a good deal, however, there's no guarantee you will use this skin for whatever reason.

Our feedback should be "The lootbox-concept here is cool. We just don't like, that you started it with mount skins." or something like this.The loot box-concept could be cool. Right now, the concept is extremely awful. A lot less people would complain if the skins were tradeable, contract specific (Skimmer, Griffon, Jackal ect) or able to buy it at a fixed, flat rate. Anything that made the consumer think like they had a legitimate shot at the product they want without being fleeced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cloud.7613 said:

@Rashagar.8349 said:

See the thing is, tonedeaf is exactly how I feel the community's reaction to it is too.Pardon? Unable to appreciate or understand the concerns or difficulties of others, in what way is the community – or those who are complaining – not understanding the role of ANet/those in charge? The way in which these loot boxes were implemented is absolutely awful. If they wanted to bring in loot boxes, there's a plethora of ways in which they could have done it that wasn't so consumer unfriendly.
  1. Mount separate contracts: still gross, but it lowers the % in which you'll get a mount that you don't care about if you're after specific mounts.
  2. A flat price based on quality of skin and then cheaper gamble contracts: still psychologically beneficial for what they want to achieve and doesn't bother those who want to catch em' all.
  3. Release mounts by smaller proportion: gives chase rare mounts per 'grouping', in this instance at least the percentage in which you'll get what you want is better than the initial 3.33%. This also again, doesn't hurt those who want to catch em' all and benefits those who want to roll the more friendly dice for the skin.

Overall what they chose to do was bundle it all together (30) – give no mounts to any form of achievement, raid ect – and laugh to the bank.

Like, you can think it's too expensive. That's fair enough. Everyone has different ideas about what "too expensive" is for them and there's no wrong answer.In its current form, they are too expensive. Some skins could easily be valued at 800-1k gems, if not more. The issue arises when you get a skin for a mount that you don't use, in which it's not only useless to you, but you'll need to spend another 400 gems to reroll til you get something of personal value or just a low overall quality skin.

You can say you'd prefer to only buy the thing you want (most likely for a higher price) instead of it being randomised. That's fair enough. It's a preference, and it's a preference that probably should be catered for (though from the sounds of it when it is being catered for there are a lot of people here who won't be happy with how it'll be implemented, those expecting to spend 400 gems on the shiniest of shinies for example).... Yeah, that's the problem, in its current iteration, gambling is one of the only thing beings catered for. Those who decide to gamble and hopefully come out RNG king and those who want all the mounts anyway. If you cannot see how this is a problem, i don't know what to tell you, you're anti-consumer.

But things like trying to justify that preference by calling the alternative predatory behaviour and all that just seems to show a fundamental lack of understanding of what makes the other instances of predatory game behaviour actually deserve the label. And I just wish people would be smarter about throwing those words around, because when it's applied in the wrong instances (like this one) it detracts from the severity of the actual instances of predatory behaviour. And then I start wondering why people are deliberately misusing the label and what they're trying to gain by manipulating current gamer trends to their own ends, and it's not a happy line of thinking.I can agree with this, however, that doesn't mean the method they chose was good especially seeing how not one mount was included in actual game play that didn't involve Gold Wars 2.

I've read your reply a couple of times now and I'm having difficulty figuring out where we disagree hehe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Gaile Gray.6029" I'm becoming concerned. I know this is something you guys need to consider closely, but there is massive backlash from multiple sites, Jim Sterling, and the community about the Mount Licenses.

Here, someone showed what a perfect mount license would be like.

I don't condone the current practice. And it seems like there's more to the outrage than just the Mount RNG. I know you guys recently upped the rewards for PoF events in the last patch, but people still feel like they are unrewarding. It seems all these things adding up (apparently also some things with HoT, which were addressed, but some players feel Anet is making the same mistakes with PoF), the current RNG Mount License is the straw that broke the camel's back.

Again, I don't condone this practice, but I don't want to see my favorite MMO lost due to this choice (I am exaggerating here, but the backlash is painful). I beg that some action be taken very soon; before the end of this week. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just allow people to buy any of the mounts on their own for 1200gems (3* the price, or a 66% rng discount) and im sure most people will quit whining

honestly i think the reaction is ridiculous; for sure you didnt output a perfect system; but please; black lion chests are an absolute trash system that no one seems to give a shit about trying to change (and adoption licenses -again; not perfect- are a massive, MASSIVE step up from that system)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not gambling as some people like to yell. They simply can't get exactly what they want some are pissed off at anet for sticking to their chosen business model for this game. I love that they offer skins now and am glad they didn't chose to lock away certain mounts behind an account upgrade , rather it is only about how pretty you can make our mount.

Now I would say that there have been much truer forms of gambling in this game for a long time. You have the mystic toilet, black lion chests and those oriann boxes at the start of this game. Then came ecto gambling and races. People didn't complain much about it then.

Instead they choose to try to take this out of proportion because they want a pretty and they want it now. This is a pretty childish reaction. If they matter to you, then buy them, if you feel it's a rip off, then use the free skin you get with your mastery unlock. The choice is yours and it is your responsibility to manage your finances responsibly.

For those with kids worried they will take advantage of your credit cards, then rid the accounts of your info and make sure you don't use auto fill.

When my child bought $100 worth of robox because my autofill synced to the tablet from my phone, I didn't blame roblox or Google, I blamed myself and made him pay back every cent and donated all that currency to his brother as punishment. Then I removed all that information and disabled synchronization like a responsible person should.

So yes I like this concept, I like you don't get doubles and I like that you don't have to buy them. Only change that would have been better would be for anet to break up the bundles into mount types as that full bundle price is a hard pill to swallow for the common folk. As a side note I bought myself one and gifted one to my wife, this will likely take place of the odd black lion key purchases we make every month or two to support anet until we get all the mounts we want

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole mess has just made me so disappointed in Arenanet. I mean its bad enough that black lion chests are a thing. But now RNG only mount skins? Why? I feel so disrespected as a customer and player. Why can't I just pay a set gem amount for a certain skin? Why does loot boxes have to invade everything? Arenanet, I want to support you and the game you make and I play, but can I just pay you money for something I want? And now, the only talk around the web is not how much fun PoF is (which it is) but how another game got yet another loot box system.
Why... just... why...

Well, time for this post to be lost in the endless sea of this massive thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...