Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]


Recommended Posts

@pah.4931 said:I still find it so odd that you would quit or "never pay another dime in the game again" over this. Anet could have never even done Mount Skins at all. Two months ago, you didn't even have a mount for 5 years of the game's life. Why all of a sudden do you NEED these skins so badly? If they aren't worth it to you (I will spare you the economics lesson of supply and demand and Anet being able to set the price however they want) then just don't buy them and keep enjoying the game you blissfully enjoy in your mount skin ignorance 4 days ago...

And anyone vilifying Anet for want to make more profits, I hope to GOD you are never in a leadership position at a company where you are responsible for keeping others employed, or -- worse -- that you never own or run your own company. Yikes.

Yes profits are the most important thing, nothing else matters. How they are made is irrelevant. Companies are never sold and everyone laid off for profits. Never has there ever been any disasters after a company cut corners to increase the bottom line. But so you know I'm not putting Anet in that category btw. There not Exxon nor even Bet123.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Djinn.9245 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@"Stu Grockalot.2937" said:Personally, I love everything to do with GW2 and want it to be the best game ever.I am also mindful that Arenanet do not work on the game for FREE!!

This all costs money to pay the developers, and as a player I am happy to help support Arenanet and contribute towards the next Living World Season,(a considerable amount of content shipped for free by the way), and also balance patches, new Raid wings, new PvP content, WvW content, (again all for free).

When you look at other online role playing games that force you to have a subscription of ~£10 a month, I won't name-drop any here, but suffice to say there was a massive motion picture based on it! ; then even after that GW2 is still cheaper.

Mounts skins are optional, so if you chose to support the company that you love, to help develop the game that you love, stop your moaning.Otherwise you run the risk of sounding like a spoiled child who doesn't get their way, and how life is unfair and treats you poorly.Do the math, even if you CHOOSE to buy all the mounts, still cheaper than other online games!

People are happy to pay for mount skins. Directly. Not for lottery tickets.

I want mount skins to be like glider skins - I buy what I choose. There is only ONE REASON why they did mount skins this way: Anet knows that gamble boxes force people to spend more than they would if they simply purchased what they want. There is no other reason - forcing people to spend more money if they want skins.

Yes, and I agree with WP on the fact that GW2 needs to make ANET money, so that we continue to have a game to play. I don't dispute that at all. We need to buy the things that are done the way we like them, when we buy gems. And before anyone starts in about gold to gems, those gems that you are buying with gold? Someone BOUGHT them with REAL MONEY. It is real money gems that go into the system. If they are needing money because they are working towards GW3, or they are trying to fundraise for the next expansion in the works, that is ok! What is NOT ok is doing what they are doing right now withholding skins from the game except for cash shop only RNG boxes.

WP brought up a REALLY great point, as much as I am disappointed for other things he mentioned. He said if they did this five skins at a time, just put 5 skins in a loot box, then people would have bought it with no problem. If they released 5 more next week, in another box, then people would buy that one too. We have a problem because they have no ingame skins, and then they dumped THIRTY of them in a box, and said "Here you go guys! If you buy a huge amount of these, we'll give you a discount!!" Yeah, that's not the best way to make your players want to spend real money in the gemstore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:A lot of people complain about the price, but the price is only ridiculous of you buy all the skins at once. If you buy them one at a time, over time, 400gems each is actually really good, cheaper than a lot of skins on the TP. My sole issue is the RNG. I have no interest in paying for things i dont want and wont use, and cant even sell. And to buy all of them, whether you do it at once or over a period of time, is NOT cheap, but you may not be able to get all the ones you want without doing so. And in the end, i dont want to pay a total of $120 once, or up to $400 over time, just to get a total of 4 or 5 skins i actually want. If it were not RNG, i could just buy the 4 or 5 inwanted for 400gems each, and not have a problem... even if they were more expensive than 400each, price them at the rate of glider skins and as long as they arnt RNG, id have no problem paying.

The point is that the only way people can guaranteed get the skins they want is to either gamble or pay $120+, not that they want to buy them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are not trying to piece together our own marketing plan for something, I don't think we need a fancy descriptor with a nice ring to it. It is simply a sales method that is not as customer friendly as some of the things Anet has done in the past. They have sold (and still do sell) several items that are worse than these adoption contracts.

.> @troops.8276 said:

So still no better descriptor for it. I don't have one either by the way. "A bit of a scam" maybe? Nah. Unfavourable sales method? That fits better but it doesn't roll off the tongue.

@fizzypetal.7936 said:

@troops.8276 said:

@Wolfheart.7483 said:.

@"Shena Fu.5792" said:Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

I wouldn't have said it was a scam or cheat either because there isn't anything hidden in the method of sale. The buyer knows what they are getting from the outset. I know my RNG luck is terrible so I'm not going to play the game.

Those that do not yet have all the mounts those skins are for will hopefully understand that while a unique skin is guaranteed, a skin might also drop for mount they don't yet possess.

Whether or not the sale method benefits the seller or buyer - that is all about perspective. The player that got their favourite skin with the first roll of the dice would be like 'hell yeah, great system!'. For others maybe not so much. Especially if the skin you really wanted didn't pop until the 30th dice roll.

@Wolfheart.7483 said:

@troops.8276 said:

@Wolfheart.7483 said:.

@"Shena Fu.5792" said:Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

Not once have I claimed they chose the best approach. This isn't all bad or all good. It is
not
a scam or cheat. It is represented in the store as exactly what it is. You may not like what it is but if someone buys an adoption contract to unlock a random new mount skin, they know exactly what they are getting: to unlock a random new mount skin.

I
agree
with the fact that it should not be RNG and skins should be sold individually. But if you
do
purchase a random skin unlock with your heart set on a specific skin(s) and do not get what you hoped for, you were not scammed, cheated or tricked. You willingly took a chance and didn't get the outcome you hoped for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@troops.8276 said:So still no better descriptor for it. I don't have one either by the way. "A bit of a scam" maybe? Nah. Unfavourable sales method? That fits better but it doesn't roll off the tongue.

@fizzypetal.7936 said:

@troops.8276 said:

@Wolfheart.7483 said:.

@"Shena Fu.5792" said:Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

I wouldn't have said it was a scam or cheat either because there isn't anything hidden in the method of sale. The buyer knows what they are getting from the outset. I know my RNG luck is terrible so I'm not going to play the game.

Those that do not yet have all the mounts those skins are for will hopefully understand that while a unique skin is guaranteed, a skin might also drop for mount they don't yet possess.

Whether or not the sale method benefits the seller or buyer - that is all about perspective. The player that got their favourite skin with the first roll of the dice would be like 'hell yeah, great system!'. For others maybe not so much. Especially if the skin you really wanted didn't pop until the 30th dice roll.

@Wolfheart.7483 said:

@troops.8276 said:

@Wolfheart.7483 said:.

@"Shena Fu.5792" said:Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

Not once have I claimed they chose the best approach. This isn't all bad or all good. It is
not
a scam or cheat. It is represented in the store as exactly what it is. You may not like what it is but if someone buys an adoption contract to unlock a random new mount skin, they know exactly what they are getting: to unlock a random new mount skin.

I
agree
with the fact that it should not be RNG and skins should be sold individually. But if you
do
purchase a random skin unlock with your heart set on a specific skin(s) and do not get what you hoped for, you were not scammed, cheated or tricked. You willingly took a chance and didn't get the outcome you hoped for.

Why does it need a label? It just is what it is...a bit of a lottery that players can choose to either participate in or not. I choose not. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Camaro Charr.2805" said:Hey I spent 400 gems on a random mount. It came up Highland Harrier, but I do not show the option to mount the Highland Harrier in game. What gives?

No, you bought a skin. You have to have POF and unlock the type of mount that the skin goes to, before you can use that. That is not an actual "mount." That is a skin for an existing mount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Elyssandariel.2679 said:

@Djinn.9245 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Stu Grockalot.2937 said:Personally, I love everything to do with GW2 and want it to be the best game ever.I am also mindful that Arenanet do not work on the game for FREE!!

This all costs money to pay the developers, and as a player I am happy to help support Arenanet and contribute towards the next Living World Season,(a considerable amount of content shipped for free by the way), and also balance patches, new Raid wings, new PvP content, WvW content, (again all for free).

When you look at other online role playing games that force you to have a subscription of ~£10 a month, I won't name-drop any here, but suffice to say there was a massive motion picture based on it! ; then even after that GW2 is still cheaper.

Mounts skins are optional, so if you chose to support the company that you love, to help develop the game that you love, stop your moaning.Otherwise you run the risk of sounding like a spoiled child who doesn't get their way, and how life is unfair and treats you poorly.Do the math, even if you CHOOSE to buy all the mounts, still cheaper than other online games!

People are happy to pay for mount skins. Directly. Not for lottery tickets.

I want mount skins to be like glider skins - I buy what I choose. There is only ONE REASON why they did mount skins this way: Anet knows that gamble boxes force people to spend more than they would if they simply purchased what they want. There is no other reason - forcing people to spend more money if they want skins.

Yes, and I agree with WP on the fact that GW2 needs to make ANET money, so that we continue to have a game to play.

There are companies that make money by good methods: making good products that people want to buy and give word of mouth to their friends about what a good product it is and what a great value for their money. And there are companies that make money by using things like psychological tricks to try to force people to buy more than they really want, or have less-good products that they want to bundle with the good products in order to make money. (Which is what Anet is doing with the RNG mount skins.)

@Elyssandariel.2679 said: I don't dispute that at all. We need to buy the things that are done the way we like them, when we buy gems. And before anyone starts in about gold to gems, those gems that you are buying with gold? Someone BOUGHT them with REAL MONEY. It is real money gems that go into the system. If they are needing money because they are working towards GW3, or they are trying to fundraise for the next expansion in the works, that is ok! What is NOT ok is doing what they are doing right now withholding skins from the game except for cash shop only RNG boxes.

WP brought up a REALLY great point, as much as I am disappointed for other things he mentioned. He said if they did this five skins at a time, just put 5 skins in a loot box, then people would have bought it with no problem. If they released 5 more next week, in another box, then people would buy that one too. We have a problem because they have no ingame skins, and then they dumped THIRTY of them in a box, and said "Here you go guys! If you buy a huge amount of these, we'll give you a discount!!" Yeah, that's not the best way to make your players want to spend real money in the gemstore.

I agree that many people would have had less of a problem with an RNG box with only 5 skins. I would not have been one of those people, but many would. It would still not be a simple 1:1 of me buying the skin I want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way the mount skins were done is super frustrating having no control over what skin or even what creature it is for. It's a lot of money to get a lot you don't want.
I assume that they are hoping the random (other than just trying to force a large amount of money) is to get diversity in skins shown. But that just seems silly. We all have different looks. I prefer more realistic while other prefer so shiny that your eyes burn from the sun like quality of it. We would diversify ourselves.What would be great if they did instead:

  • in store: 500 for specific skin, 2500 for matching set of the 5.
  • in game: achievements / tasks done with mounts to unlock skins
  • in game: purchasable skins from the original npc we got them from. These can be a rediculous amount of gold, that's fine. Tempts people buying gold with gems or makes people play.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the price is good with the 2000 gem mount and that they should just get rid of the RNG aspect.Make the coolest mounts 2000 gems, the visually very different but without special effects mounts 1200 gems and the ones with just new dye channels like 400 gem or something like that. 2000 gems is like 550 gold or something and that is pretty close to the volcanus, infinite light or foefire weapons. Visually the mounts give much more than any legendary or glider or anything in game so I think thats ok for a cost of mediocre looking weapon.I just really dont like the RNG.Awesome job with the mount skins A net. :) I just hope all the best for a game I have loved so long and still love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Endless Soul.5178 said:I never thought a thread about mount skins and Anet's handling of them (64 pages at the time of this post) would surpass the old Mounts [Merged] thread (41 pages).

I think it's a good example that people really do like the skins but are frustrated that they can't buy the ones they want directly like you can with gliders and outfits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

honestly and truth be told i think the player base for once . has more than the right to not be happy about the matters of the mount skins and RNG Loot boxes!!! guild wars was never like that and the fact this game is named after that nor should be this game. guild wars2 should be close to the same guild wars with improvements anything other wise and different is just a copy cat game. and them are a nickel a dozen today

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Silyth.7382 said:The way the mount skins were done is super frustrating having no control over what skin or even what creature it is for. It's a lot of money to get a lot you don't want.

I assume that they are hoping the random (other than just trying to force a large amount of money) is to get diversity in skins shown. But that just seems silly. We all have different looks. I prefer more realistic while other prefer so shiny that your eyes burn from the sun like quality of it. We would diversify ourselves.What would be great if they did instead:

  • in store: 500 for specific skin, 2500 for matching set of the 5.
  • in game: achievements / tasks done with mounts to unlock skins
  • in game: purchasable skins from the original npc we got them from. These can be a rediculous amount of gold, that's fine. Tempts people buying gold with gems or makes people play.

paying for them with gold from the npcs we got the mounts initially would be even better than gems.but the REAL problem is the RNG (that would obviously also vanish with the gold-solution)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Elyssandariel.2679 said:

@Djinn.9245 said:

@Oglaf.1074 said:Has Anet done anything other than merge the threads like this? Any response in this thread? Their social media? Anything?

Or are they just bunkering down and praying that this will blow over?

Yes, they have outright closed the thread that talks about the damage of gamble boxes instead of merging it. Interesting, huh?

Yeah, I noticed that too. All of our psychological evidence gone in one fell swoop, when they eventually clear it away. I might repost my stuff in this thread just so everyone gets a chance to see it before the other thread "disappears." I love how that merged almost ALL of the other threads, but that one.

Speaking of conspiracy theories, anyone else feeling like this ridiculous level of public blowback over a pricing plan is being engineered and puppeted by some tiny portion of unscrupulous string pullers for their own selfish ends?It's the only rational explanation.

=P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Galactic.6453 said:

@pah.4931 said:I still find it so odd that you would quit or "never pay another dime in the game again" over this. Anet could have never even done Mount Skins at all. Two months ago, you didn't even have a mount for 5 years of the game's life. Why all of a sudden do you NEED these skins so badly? If they aren't worth it to you (I will spare you the economics lesson of supply and demand and Anet being able to set the price however they want) then just don't buy them and keep enjoying the game you blissfully enjoy in your mount skin ignorance 4 days ago...

And anyone vilifying Anet for want to make more profits, I hope to GOD you are never in a leadership position at a company where you are responsible for keeping others employed, or -- worse -- that you never own or run your own company. Yikes.

This isn't about needing to have anything. This is about wanting to be able to buy what you want to buy. No one is villifying Anet for wanting earn money. Doesn't mean people will be fine with them doing it with any means necessary. This is just a bad and manipulative business practice and calling them out for bad and manipulative business practice. It's as simple as that.

No laws were broken, and I GUARANTEE YOU they are making more money this way. If you actually love this game, you would see that and be happy that this "manipulative" (lol) business practice is keeping the lights on. OK, so you don't get the shiny raptor you want, but maybe now you might get one more expansion before the game shutters.

I don't want to go into another ROI business lesson in this thread, so suffice it to say... "making money" doesn't prevent companies from going under. They need to make "enough money" ... when budget time comes around and NCSoft has a few million to invest, it's looking more and more like that's going to be going to their mobile games which make about 400% more ROI than a huge, lunking, aging game like GW2. If I got 2 bucks to invest, why get a $.50 return when i could get a $4.25 return?? "Profitable" can still go under, guys.

(p.s. calling someone bad and manipulative is kind of the exact definition of vilifying...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jaskar.3071 said:

@Camaro Charr.2805 said:Hey I spent 400 gems on a random mount. It came up Highland Harrier, but I do not show the option to mount the Highland Harrier in game. What gives?

Its a SKIN.there is an option to change mount skins in the hero-menu

In the hero menu it is showing as locked for me... has a lock symbol over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Camaro Charr.2805 said:

@Jaskar.3071 said:

@Camaro Charr.2805 said:Hey I spent 400 gems on a random mount. It came up Highland Harrier, but I do not show the option to mount the Highland Harrier in game. What gives?

Its a SKIN.there is an option to change mount skins in the hero-menu

In the hero menu it is showing as locked for me... has a lock symbol over it.

Let me guess... because I don't have the original griffon mount, then I cant use it... crap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Rezzet.3614 said:Can we stop exaggerating its too soon to call doom on gw2 cuz of the shady mount skin lootboxes. As long they add non rng non lootbox skins too, to the store in the future i see no problem, so yeh too soon.

The issue people have is that right now they don't have any skins in the store that they can buy directly. Also there's an argument to be had of how this has affected Anet's reputation both with the player base and those outside. Dulfy and Jim Sterling have already made comments condemning this system as it is right now where both influencers have an audience outside of just GW2 players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So 'unfriendly sales method' then. Honestly I think that is what people should say. I understand though why people will just use a more blunt and direct word to get the point across. Why try and censor them though?

@Wolfheart.7483 said:We are not trying to piece together our own marketing plan for something, I don't think we need a fancy descriptor with a nice ring to it. It is simply a sales method that is not as customer friendly as some of the things Anet has done in the past. They have sold (and still do) sell several items that are worse than these adoption contracts.

.> @troops.8276 said:

So still no better descriptor for it. I don't have one either by the way. "A bit of a scam" maybe? Nah. Unfavourable sales method? That fits better but it doesn't roll off the tongue.

@fizzypetal.7936 said:

@troops.8276 said:

@Wolfheart.7483 said:.

@"Shena Fu.5792" said:Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

I wouldn't have said it was a scam or cheat either because there isn't anything hidden in the method of sale. The buyer knows what they are getting from the outset. I know my RNG luck is terrible so I'm not going to play the game.

Those that do not yet have all the mounts those skins are for will hopefully understand that while a unique skin is guaranteed, a skin might also drop for mount they don't yet possess.

Whether or not the sale method benefits the seller or buyer - that is all about perspective. The player that got their favourite skin with the first roll of the dice would be like 'hell yeah, great system!'. For others maybe not so much. Especially if the skin you really wanted didn't pop until the 30th dice roll.

@Wolfheart.7483 said:

@troops.8276 said:

@Wolfheart.7483 said:.

@"Shena Fu.5792" said:Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

Not once have I claimed they chose the best approach. This isn't all bad or all good. It is
not
a scam or cheat. It is represented in the store as exactly what it is. You may not like what it is but if someone buys an adoption contract to unlock a random new mount skin, they know exactly what they are getting: to unlock a random new mount skin.

I
agree
with the fact that it should not be RNG and skins should be sold individually. But if you
do
purchase a random skin unlock with your heart set on a specific skin(s) and do not get what you hoped for, you were not scammed, cheated or tricked. You willingly took a chance and didn't get the outcome you hoped for.

@fizzypetal.7936 said:

@troops.8276 said:So still no better descriptor for it. I don't have one either by the way. "A bit of a scam" maybe? Nah. Unfavourable sales method? That fits better but it doesn't roll off the tongue.

@fizzypetal.7936 said:

@troops.8276 said:

@Wolfheart.7483 said:.

@"Shena Fu.5792" said:Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

I wouldn't have said it was a scam or cheat either because there isn't anything hidden in the method of sale. The buyer knows what they are getting from the outset. I know my RNG luck is terrible so I'm not going to play the game.

Those that do not yet have all the mounts those skins are for will hopefully understand that while a unique skin is guaranteed, a skin might also drop for mount they don't yet possess.

Whether or not the sale method benefits the seller or buyer - that is all about perspective. The player that got their favourite skin with the first roll of the dice would be like 'hell yeah, great system!'. For others maybe not so much. Especially if the skin you really wanted didn't pop until the 30th dice roll.

@Wolfheart.7483 said:

@troops.8276 said:

@Wolfheart.7483 said:.

@"Shena Fu.5792" said:Just because it's optional doesn't mean it's okay for businesses to scam and exploit their customers. Nobody likes to be cheated, and customers have all the rights to voice their dissent.

Especially in this case when many players were willing to open their wallets, provided that they get a fair deal in return. However the only thing on the devs mind is how to squeeze as much money from loyal consumers via questionable practices.

When people throw around words like "cheat" and "scam" it is completely unwarranted and yet another example of blowing it out of proportion. There is nothing that is a cheat or scam about these. You can dislike the method of sale but do not claim it is something that it is not simply to put it in a more negative light.

What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

Not once have I claimed they chose the best approach. This isn't all bad or all good. It is
not
a scam or cheat. It is represented in the store as exactly what it is. You may not like what it is but if someone buys an adoption contract to unlock a random new mount skin, they know exactly what they are getting: to unlock a random new mount skin.

I
agree
with the fact that it should not be RNG and skins should be sold individually. But if you
do
purchase a random skin unlock with your heart set on a specific skin(s) and do not get what you hoped for, you were not scammed, cheated or tricked. You willingly took a chance and didn't get the outcome you hoped for.

Why does it need a label? It just is what it is...a bit of a lottery that players can choose to either participate in or not. I choose not. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Djinn.9245 said:

There are companies that make money by good methods: making good products that people want to buy and give word of mouth to their friends about what a good product it is and what a great value for their money. And there are companies that make money by using things like psychological tricks to try to force people to buy more than they really want, or have less-good products that they want to bundle with the good products in order to make money. (Which is what Anet is doing with the RNG mount skins.)

I totally agree with you 100%. This is absolutely shady how they handled this. You and I and a few other people that have posted too know the science behind this stuff. It's all Behavioral Modification 101. Watson and Skinner would love this stuff going on right now. I would rather just have a few skins ingame, even if they were just the 4 channel ones, that we can work towards, and then buy the others directly. Someone made a point that they based this whole expansion on mounts and very little else, so that ANET could monetize it so heavily in the gemstore. I don't mind something being monetized, just not to the extreme we are seeing now. Prices are too high for RNG or for individual skins for the one they DID release. If they had done this RIGHT they could have made SO MUCH MONEY.

@Elyssandariel.2679 said: I don't dispute that at all. We need to buy the things that are done the way we like them, when we buy gems. And before anyone starts in about gold to gems, those gems that you are buying with gold? Someone BOUGHT them with REAL MONEY. It is real money gems that go into the system. If they are needing money because they are working towards GW3, or they are trying to fundraise for the next expansion in the works, that is ok! What is NOT ok is doing what they are doing right now withholding skins from the game except for cash shop only RNG boxes.

WP brought up a REALLY great point, as much as I am disappointed for other things he mentioned. He said if they did this five skins at a time, just put 5 skins in a loot box, then people would have bought it with no problem. If they released 5 more next week, in another box, then people would buy that one too. We have a problem because they have no ingame skins, and then they dumped THIRTY of them in a box, and said "Here you go guys! If you buy a huge amount of these, we'll give you a discount!!" Yeah, that's not the best way to make your players want to spend real money in the gemstore.

I agree that many people would have had less of a problem with an RNG box with only 5 skins. I would not have been one of those people, but many would. It would still not be a simple 1:1 of me buying the skin I want.

I wouldn't like it either, but I wouldn't mind it so terribly much as I do now. It's a 1 in 5 chance instead of a 1 in 30, to begin with. Sometimes random loot boxes are fun to play with. I like opening them as much as the rest of the players. I think they should keep the boxes on the market, for people that like to have that kind of fun. They should reduce the chance and split up the skins somehow, definitely. But, put the skins out for individual purchase, as well!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Rashagar.8349 said:

@Elyssandariel.2679 said:

@Djinn.9245 said:

@Oglaf.1074 said:Has Anet done anything other than merge the threads like this? Any response in this thread? Their social media? Anything?

Or are they just bunkering down and praying that this will blow over?

Yes, they have outright closed the thread that talks about the damage of gamble boxes instead of merging it. Interesting, huh?

Yeah, I noticed that too. All of our psychological evidence gone in one fell swoop, when they eventually clear it away. I might repost my stuff in this thread just so everyone gets a chance to see it before the other thread "disappears." I love how that merged almost ALL of the other threads, but that one.

Speaking of conspiracy theories, anyone else feeling like this ridiculous level of public blowback over a pricing plan is being engineered and puppeted by some tiny portion of unscrupulous string pullers for their own selfish ends?It's the only rational explanation.

=P

No, it's not the only rational explanation. Not everything is a conspiracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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