Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]


Recommended Posts

@Zero Day.2594 said:

@pah.4931 said:

@Sylv.5324 said:

@pah.4931 said:

@Sylv.5324 said:

@pah.4931 said:

And frankly, if you like this game, you should too.

Of course I like this game, that's why I'm ticked off that the reason I bought this xpac was gated behind 'gamble or pay a further $120 for a limited time to get the skin you want'. I already paid for the ultimate edition, why was this not included, if they were that desperate for cash?

OK. First of all. Anet never promised Mount Skins with the expansion at all. I can't recall a single marketing device that stated mounts would even have skins. So you can't claim that first point. You bought PoF as it was advertised.

Second of all, if they indeed are "strapped for cash" then why would they include something for free in a package that you bought without them including it? You see how that's silly right? (I still feel like most of you need business lessons ... "making money" isn't enough when you have bosses and investors and boards of directors)

Now let me ask you something. Would you have bought PoF if they announced there would never be any mount skins? If you still would have, then just go ahead and pretend there aren't any mount skins. Boom. Have fun!

Responses like yours are pretty much cementing my resolve never to spend a dime on ANet again, because they have enabled and encouraged this disingenuousness and condescension. Thanks for saving me money!

Does logic often resolve you to not spend money in other realms? Or is logic just toxic to you in video games?

People need to stop thinking with their hearts. This is a very emotional reaction to a very logical decision.

And anyone who is against Anet trying to make more money, please work next week for free at your job. And never, ever ask for a raise. Lest you be yet another "greedy kitten", eh?

Pretty kitten sure, that as consumers we have every right to have (and should have) a say and push back on whatever it is we're consuming.

Lest we just bend over every time and say "Okay, they need the money - take it"

@primatos.5413 said:kitten why are they allowed to sell somehing to 12 year old people anyway ? Make Game 16+ at least and say what u want .. it is a Gamble System and everybody knows

There was a recent discussion with some board (same one that gives game ratings - "E" for everyone...) on loot boxes and gambling...

Gist of it is that that board doesn't see loot boxes as gambling. And if they were, the rating would be set higher to Adult or something (maybe Mature) - screwing over a lot of games.

The ESRB is funded by gaming companies. They are not a government organization. They obviously have an interest in a lot of games not being rated M. Not to mention that their argument for that was really flimsy at best.

@fizzypetal.7936 said:There has been a lot of conjecture on why ArenaNet took the decision to issue 31 mount skins in one hit, 30 that can only be acquired through an RNG based system - unless you can afford to just buy the 30 bundle.

Their method of selling isn't a deal breaker for me at all. I have a choice. Today my choice is I won't play the mount skin lottery because my RNG luck is rubbish and there will likely be other skins that come up on the Gem Store that I can buy outright and will be really super happy about. I get so much more out of the game then just gem store stuff so I'll keep playing and as and when things come up that are must haves I'll continue to purchase gems. I don't play any other games, this doesn't have a sub, there is no loot or node competition, it has beautiful maps and the most customisation of any game I've played which is part and parcel why I've been playing since Beta. In the main, I'm a pretty happy customer.

Yep, bummer that I can't buy outright the mount skins I want. But not a deal breaker and certainly not something I'm upset about. It doesn't mean it is any less valid for someone else to be really upset - after all, who am I to decide for someone else what is or is not important to them or why?

That said, it would be really great if ArenaNet would give us a bit of clarity so this issue could be discussed in a less 'animated' manner or be resolved full stop.

ArenaNet:

  1. Why are the mount skins only available in RNG based lootboxes?
  2. Will the opinions that have been expressed by the players in the GW2 Official forums, on Reddit and elsewhere outside these forums have any influence on how gem store items are put on sale in future?
  3. Given the feedback so far, are there any discussions about tweaking the current RNG system for the mount skins?

Would they even have any option with those questions? If they said 1 was for fun, most people wouldn't buy it, if they said it was for the money most people would hate them. And 2 is a 'yes' or 'no' answer with 'no' not being an option, same as 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@pah.4931 said:

@Sylv.5324 said:

@pah.4931 said:

@Sylv.5324 said:

@pah.4931 said:

And frankly, if you like this game, you should too.

Of course I like this game, that's why I'm ticked off that the reason I bought this xpac was gated behind 'gamble or pay a further $120 for a limited time to get the skin you want'. I already paid for the ultimate edition, why was this not included, if they were that desperate for cash?

OK. First of all. Anet never promised Mount Skins with the expansion at all. I can't recall a single marketing device that stated mounts would even have skins. So you can't claim that first point. You bought PoF as it was advertised.

Second of all, if they indeed are "strapped for cash" then why would they include something for free in a package that you bought without them including it? You see how that's silly right? (I still feel like most of you need business lessons ... "making money" isn't enough when you have bosses and investors and boards of directors)

Now let me ask you something. Would you have bought PoF if they announced there would never be any mount skins? If you still would have, then just go ahead and pretend there aren't any mount skins. Boom. Have fun!

Responses like yours are pretty much cementing my resolve never to spend a dime on ANet again, because they have enabled and encouraged this disingenuousness and condescension. Thanks for saving me money!

Does logic often resolve you to not spend money in other realms? Or is logic just toxic to you in video games?

People need to stop thinking with their hearts. This is a very emotional reaction to a very logical decision.

And anyone who is against Anet trying to make more money, please work next week for free at your job. And never, ever ask for a raise. Lest you be yet another "greedy kitten", eh?

As I've said, Anet could make money like other companies who don't use manipulative practices. You act like Anet has no choice but to use manipulative practices if they want to make money. This is simply untrue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lilyanna.9361 said:

@GreyWolf.8670 said:

@Lilyanna.9361 said:

@GreyWolf.8670 said:

@pah.4931 said:

@GreyWolf.8670 said:

@pah.4931 said:

@SmirkDog.3160 said:

@pah.4931 said:They are trying to make MORE money. Which isn't inherently evil by itself. That is what I am saying.

Sorry to dispel the illusion for you here, but greed isn't exactly
not
evil.

But it's not greed. It's business. If this was the most played MMO with a sub, you'd have a point. But it's not. It's an aging game in a declining genre. It needs to show growth or it's harder to convince "the masters" to keep it running.

(I mean. Sure, it could be greed. But I am arguing that it probably isn't.)

((ask yourself ... if you ran a company, would you not take more money????))

It's greed. They could have just as easily put the separate skins on the store. They just wanted the capture the percentage of people that didn't get the skin they wanted the first time and make them pay more.

Wanting more money is NOT the definition of greed. You could easily work for $8 per hour. Do you? Or are you greedy? You are greedy aren't you!? (see.)

Maybe they are preventing layoffs by doing this. Is it greedy to keep people with families employed and thousands of people enjoying a video game? Hmmm.

Yes, it is the definition of greed. This really isn't difficult. My income and what I desire to spend have nothing to factoring into the definition of a word.

greed[ɡrēd]NOUN
intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.

Then, we, as humans, are all greedy by definition.

You can label yourself if you choose.

Oh look, an insult. No, by nature we are selfish, greedy, or judgement.

Greed created the drive for humanity to do things, along with various other feelings.

If you want to debate this (which is pointless) the moment you think: 'I want more than this person' than that is greed. Technically yes, businesses are greedy, but at that case if you work for a business you want more money, therefore you are greedy. The money you earn, should be enough to give you basic necessities, but as humans WE, as a race, always want more. That's how we can progress and also how we can faltered.

I'm sorry everything is not radiant, holy, or justice-filled for you but that is how this world works buttercup.

It's an interesting and varied field of research and study, human nature and it's evolution, consciousness, psychology and neuroscience to name but a few. There is not all ways consensus between or even within these areas. I find the duality of us humans very interesting. An individual can indeed be very greedy and selfish to some at times (and so much worse besides) and yet also display incredible empathy, sharing and altruism to others, even strangers.I do hope you can see that other side to humanity and not view all as a product of the worst parts, as the world and you becomes a darker place with out it. Imagine why someone is at work to ask for a raise in the first place, for most of the world today and throughout vast tracts of history its to provide for family and that drive is born out of love. Whether it's picking berries or getting eaten by a lion (Either that or can you show me the link to the new research that proves your theory)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I LOVE a bunch of these mount skins, great work artists and whoever came up with the ideas.However, the price strategy, and number, is ridiculous.

Buying a single mount skin at 400 is perfectly reasonable, but at random? This is the loot-box dilemma all over again, and it puts a bad taste in players' mouths who don't get something they will personally use/enjoy and don't have the money to gamble multiple times. If you even bumped up the price to 600 or 800 for a mount skin OF OUR CHOICE, that would be fair. Or, buying a random skin for a mount of our choice (i.e. random griffon skin) for 400, so we can narrow it to our favorite one to use.

And then, the 9600 gems for the full 30 mount pack, is just insanity to me. That's a $120 value based on their gem pricing, which is likely more than most people have spent on this singular game unless you were here from the beginning, and well over what you'd spend on other free-to-play games for similar cosmetic options. My point of view is that if they valued the original game and each expansion at ~$50 upon release, then either A) cosmetic/account purchases should not exceed that, or B) for $120 I should be able to access some SERIOUS content comparable to more than HOTS/POF.

I fully support any brand/company/dev. team that obviously needs to make money for their hard work and great product. But I'd be more invested in those people and their work and the community if I had incentives to buy and support specific things that are actually meaningful to me and feel like a fair deal. Gambling and incentivizing such, without any alternative option to buy/earn what you want, is a BAD idea in my, and many others', opinion.

Also, as a side note: If this is just a pricing strategy timed for the holiday rush, and the plan is then AFTERWARD to drop the prices or make individual selections available, that will really annoy the people who buy these right now, so I hope that's not the case.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don´t get why ANET first comes up with all this rng mount skin stuff and afterwards gives the community the possibility of "sharing your thoughts!".It should be the other way around.Now they´ve got a nice shitstorm on them and people stop playing this game. Great job I would say.All the time Anet is talking about "the best community" and "listening to the players". What did they do? Place some rng stuff ingame and wait what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sylv.5324

So you suddenly have enough money to pay for a sub, and most likely their overpriced cash shops, also probably along with some gear that will give you (most likely) some sort of unfair edge?

You are either playing:WoWFFBDOSWTOR

Which all have absolutely horrible reputations right now as well.

Sub+paying for basic function+paying for characters+paying for cosmetics+paying for housing= A lot of people have a lot more money then what they are trying to claim, which is again, laughable at how much they want to splurge on everything else. You are paying approximately ...two or three times more everywhere else compared to this game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sylv.5324 said:Ok, Anet. Thanks to enabling folks like Pah, I am done. That's the kind of player you clearly want. In the meantime, I'll resub to a game that will let me spend my money the way I prefer to.

I'm sorry if my opinion on ethical business practices offended you. I really don't mean to stir the pot or personally attack anyone. I just don't think this is WRONG and I think the mob mentality has made valid arguments from either side hard to find. It's just a big emotion-fest, which I don't like (even if I am guilty of getting riled up from time to time during a lively debate).

Also, I have not and never will buy a loot box. I understand why you don't like them. I just want to urge people to keep things in perspective. Anet is trying to make more profits. I am sure they had A LOT of meetings about this. I am sure they have a ton of data supporting the decision. It's not evil to want to keep your employees securely employed and to hopefully grow your business. They didn't break any laws. I personally think, as a business, they are morally obligated to make as much money as they can (legally).

I am also sure all your feedback will lead to changes. Be patient. Give them the benefit of the doubt. If this decision effects revenue, then they won't do it again. You all are fighting the good fight (even if I am in the minority that couldn't care less how purely cosmetic items are treated in a cash shop). Don't buy the skins!

On the other hand, if this method DOES make them more money (short and long term), then you have to see that Anet has to do it. Right? And you should be OK with them doing this with cosmetic items if it means the game will get more support and revenue and investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Galactic.6453 said:

@pah.4931 said:

@Sylv.5324 said:

@pah.4931 said:

@Sylv.5324 said:

@pah.4931 said:

And frankly, if you like this game, you should too.

Of course I like this game, that's why I'm ticked off that the reason I bought this xpac was gated behind 'gamble or pay a further $120 for a limited time to get the skin you want'. I already paid for the ultimate edition, why was this not included, if they were that desperate for cash?

OK. First of all. Anet never promised Mount Skins with the expansion at all. I can't recall a single marketing device that stated mounts would even have skins. So you can't claim that first point. You bought PoF as it was advertised.

Second of all, if they indeed are "strapped for cash" then why would they include something for free in a package that you bought without them including it? You see how that's silly right? (I still feel like most of you need business lessons ... "making money" isn't enough when you have bosses and investors and boards of directors)

Now let me ask you something. Would you have bought PoF if they announced there would never be any mount skins? If you still would have, then just go ahead and pretend there aren't any mount skins. Boom. Have fun!

Responses like yours are pretty much cementing my resolve never to spend a dime on ANet again, because they have enabled and encouraged this disingenuousness and condescension. Thanks for saving me money!

Does logic often resolve you to not spend money in other realms? Or is logic just toxic to you in video games?

People need to stop thinking with their hearts. This is a very emotional reaction to a very logical decision.

And anyone who is against Anet trying to make more money, please work next week for free at your job. And never, ever ask for a raise. Lest you be yet another "greedy kitten", eh?

Pretty kitten sure, that as consumers we have every right to have (and should have) a say and push back on whatever it is we're consuming.

Lest we just bend over every time and say "Okay, they need the money - take it"

@primatos.5413 said:kitten why are they allowed to sell somehing to 12 year old people anyway ? Make Game 16+ at least and say what u want .. it is a Gamble System and everybody knows

There was a recent discussion with some board (same one that gives game ratings - "E" for everyone...) on loot boxes and gambling...

Gist of it is that that board doesn't see loot boxes as gambling. And if they were, the rating would be set higher to Adult or something (maybe Mature) - screwing over a lot of games.

The ESRB is funded by gaming companies. They are not a government organization. They obviously have an interest in a lot of games not being rated M. Not to mention that their argument for that was really flimsy at best.

@fizzypetal.7936 said:There has been a lot of conjecture on why ArenaNet took the decision to issue 31 mount skins in one hit, 30 that can only be acquired through an RNG based system - unless you can afford to just buy the 30 bundle.

Their method of selling isn't a deal breaker for me at all. I have a choice. Today my choice is I won't play the mount skin lottery because my RNG luck is rubbish and there will likely be other skins that come up on the Gem Store that I can buy outright and will be really super happy about. I get so much more out of the game then just gem store stuff so I'll keep playing and as and when things come up that are must haves I'll continue to purchase gems. I don't play any other games, this doesn't have a sub, there is no loot or node competition, it has beautiful maps and the most customisation of any game I've played which is part and parcel why I've been playing since Beta. In the main, I'm a pretty happy customer.

Yep, bummer that I can't buy outright the mount skins I want. But not a deal breaker and certainly not something I'm upset about. It doesn't mean it is any less valid for someone else to be really upset - after all, who am I to decide for someone else what is or is not important to them or why?

That said, it would be really great if ArenaNet would give us a bit of clarity so this issue could be discussed in a less 'animated' manner or be resolved full stop.

ArenaNet:
  1. Why are the mount skins only available in RNG based lootboxes?
  2. Will the opinions that have been expressed by the players in the GW2 Official forums, on Reddit and elsewhere outside these forums have any influence on how gem store items are put on sale in future?
  3. Given the feedback so far, are there any discussions about tweaking the current RNG system for the mount skins?

Would they even have any option with those questions? If they said 1 was for fun, most people wouldn't buy it, if they said it was for the money most people would hate them. And 2 is a 'yes' or 'no' answer with 'no' not being an option, same as 3.

The answer to those questions don't necessarily have to be a yes or no. I for one am open to hearing the rationale behind what they did with the 30 mount skins and what their intentions are going forward. The questions are an opportunity for ArenaNet to communicate with us and to show us in some way that all voices have been heard and viewpoints are, have been or will be considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Blackbox.5743 said:I don´t get why ANET first comes up with all this rng mount skin stuff and afterwards gives the community the possibility of "sharing your thoughts!".It should be the other way around.Now they´ve got a nice kitten on them and people stop playing this game. Great job I would say.All the time Anet is talking about "the best community" and "listening to the players". What did they do? Place some rng stuff ingame and wait what happens.

The problem with this is that usually a very tiny, itsy-bitsy percentage of players are on forums or read about any of this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to objecting to Anet using manipulative practices to try to get me to spend more money, I have the following practical objections to the random mount skins:

  1. You can't choose the skin you actually want.
  2. If you have limited funds, you can't just keep buying skins until you get the one you want.
  3. No matter how many random skins you buy, if you don't buy them all you could be stuck with only skins you don't like.
  4. You could get a griffon skin even if you don't have the griffon.
  5. If you prefer a specific mount (I prefer the jackal), you could end up with skin(s) that aren't for that mount.

And I'm sure I will think of more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Rashagar.8349 said:

@Sylv.5324 said:Don't care, spending my hundreds a month elsewhere. GLHF.

This is how loyalty for over a decade is destroyed.

In fairness, if it's "destroyed" this easily and quickly, it can't have been a very sturdy loyalty to begin with. You weren't able to buy in completely to the latest cosmetic craze in a way that 100% suited you immediately upon release of said new craze. I don't mean it to seem like I'm picking on you or anything but I think that says more about the quality of your "loyalty" than anything.

Perhaps. Then again, it may be that there's nothing easy or quick about this for many among us, considering that the opening salvo against the most vintage of loyal customers was fired back in November of 2012. After what looks remarkably like an extensive campaign to drive away anyone and everyone interested in the game (via non-seasonal temporary content [the effects of which yet linger and continue to impact new players], NPE, trait system revamp, etc.), it's no wonder that this latest enfilade from anet has prompted some previously steadfast loyalists to at long last sound the retreat.

keywords: straw, break, camel, back. See also: sucker punch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@troops.8276 said:

@Lilyanna.9361 said:

@GreyWolf.8670 said:

@Lilyanna.9361 said:

@GreyWolf.8670 said:

@pah.4931 said:

@GreyWolf.8670 said:

@pah.4931 said:

@SmirkDog.3160 said:

@pah.4931 said:They are trying to make MORE money. Which isn't inherently evil by itself. That is what I am saying.

Sorry to dispel the illusion for you here, but greed isn't exactly
not
evil.

But it's not greed. It's business. If this was the most played MMO with a sub, you'd have a point. But it's not. It's an aging game in a declining genre. It needs to show growth or it's harder to convince "the masters" to keep it running.

(I mean. Sure, it could be greed. But I am arguing that it probably isn't.)

((ask yourself ... if you ran a company, would you not take more money????))

It's greed. They could have just as easily put the separate skins on the store. They just wanted the capture the percentage of people that didn't get the skin they wanted the first time and make them pay more.

Wanting more money is NOT the definition of greed. You could easily work for $8 per hour. Do you? Or are you greedy? You are greedy aren't you!? (see.)

Maybe they are preventing layoffs by doing this. Is it greedy to keep people with families employed and thousands of people enjoying a video game? Hmmm.

Yes, it is the definition of greed. This really isn't difficult. My income and what I desire to spend have nothing to factoring into the definition of a word.

greed[ɡrēd]NOUN
intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.

Then, we, as humans, are all greedy by definition.

You can label yourself if you choose.

Oh look, an insult. No, by nature we are selfish, greedy, or judgement.

Greed created the drive for humanity to do things, along with various other feelings.

If you want to debate this (which is pointless) the moment you think: 'I want more than this person' than that is greed. Technically yes, businesses are greedy, but at that case if you work for a business you want more money, therefore you are greedy. The money you earn, should be enough to give you basic necessities, but as humans WE, as a race, always want more. That's how we can progress and also how we can faltered.

I'm sorry everything is not radiant, holy, or justice-filled for you but that is how this world works buttercup.

It's an interesting and varied field of research and study, human nature and it's evolution, consciousness, psychology and neuroscience to name but a few. There is not all ways consensus between or even within these areas. I find the duality of us humans very interesting. An individual can indeed be very greedy and selfish to some at times (and so much worse besides) and yet also display incredible empathy, sharing and altruism to others, even strangers.I do hope you can see that other side to humanity and not view all as a product of the worst parts, as the world and you becomes a darker place with out it. Imagine why someone is at work to ask for a raise in the first place, for most of the world today and throughout vast tracts of history its to provide for family and that drive is born out of love. Whether it's picking berries or getting eaten by a lion (Either that or can you show me the link to the new research that proves your theory)

Not dark my friend.I'm actually a very cheerful person with a pretty damn good life.

But personal life aside, I am a logical thinker that takes things what is given to me. What is wrong admitting that our default behavior does indeed go to those things? Because any positive could become negative, and negative can become positive. I love to collect things (which is why I play this game), but eventually it could become excessive and obssessive collecting. Another person could drink wine casually, but that has the risk in turning into alcoholism. Someone could love storing or saving things, but eventually that can turn into hoarding.

This logic can apply to anything that we do in life. And as sentient creature we have been taught that those things are bad. We are not objective. We are full of fallacy. We are biased by default. We have to prune and train ourselves to not react on basic instinct. There have been studies after studies of several situations when you allow humans to do what they want. Giving them power, to deciding if someone lives or die. It can go on and on.

Yes, as a emotional response I can say that is very dark outlook or even a cynical outlook of human beings, but at the end of the day it is just fact. It has proven factual, and at that point that is like me trying to argue whether or not if we are going to die. Again, sorry if you or anyone else was expecting righteous behaviors as our absolute default nature, but it's just not the case. At the end of the day, it does boil down to every man for himself unless we are taught/trained ourselves to think and act morally right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@pah.4931 said:

@Sylv.5324 said:Ok, Anet. Thanks to enabling folks like Pah, I am done. That's the kind of player you clearly want. In the meantime, I'll resub to a game that will let me spend my money the way I prefer to.

I'm sorry if my opinion on ethical business practices offended you. I really don't mean to stir the pot or personally attack anyone. I just don't think this is WRONG and I think the mob mentality has made valid arguments from either side hard to find. It's just a big emotion-fest, which I don't like (even if I am guilty of getting riled up from time to time during a lively debate).

Also, I have not and never will buy a loot box. I understand why you don't like them. I just want to urge people to keep things in perspective. Anet is trying to make more profits. I am sure they had A LOT of meetings about this. I am sure they have a ton of data supporting the decision. It's not evil to want to keep your employees securely employed and to hopefully grow your business. They didn't break any laws. I personally think, as a business, they are morally obligated to make as much money as they can (legally).

I am also sure all your feedback will lead to changes. Be patient. Give them the benefit of the doubt. If this decision effects revenue, then they won't do it again. You all are fighting the good fight (even if I am in the minority that couldn't care less how purely cosmetic items are treated in a cash shop). Don't buy the skins!

On the other hand, if this method DOES make them more money (short and long term), then you have to see that Anet has to do it. Right? And you should be OK with them doing this with cosmetic items if it means the game will get more support and revenue and investment.

I think a quicker way of saying that is:"Ye can like it, lump it, or leave it"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arena-Net, I won't buy anything if I don't know what I will get for my money. I don't know anyone who's gonna buy these mount skins, if there's no safety for getting something you will use or like. Either you say goodbye to our money, or you offer these skins separate in the gem shop. I will buy a certain mount skin for 800 or 1000 gems, but I will never ever finance or support gambling with gems in Guild Wars 2. That’s just irresponsible and selfish referred to our community and every player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nansen.4631 said:

Out of curiosity for those who are so outraged by it. We had many skins hidden in the Black Lion Chest with no other way of getting it. Not to mention all the other lootboxes that have been in and out of the store in the past years (Southsun Crate, LS lootboxes, Some halloweens ago there was something with wrappers as well though I forgot the name). What makes this system so much worse then those systems? There was never such an outrage before about any RNG system

I wouldn't color myself outraged. I don't care for RNG products and have been vocal about it for a long time. That said, , I believe I can explain the difference.

1) There have easily been as many (or more) complaints about BL Chests/keys, they've just been spread over 5+ years.

2) Desirable cosmetic items in BLC's have come in trickles. Each weapon set is going to attract some portion of the player-base. That portion is likely smaller than the subset of all players wanting mount skins. So, mount skins are more like a deluge. Complaints about BLC's happen each time something new comes out. However, each release affects fewer players, so the total number of unhappy posts is spread across the life of the system, rather than concentrated as the complaints about licenses are.

3) Mounts are new. Skins for them are scarce. The price or looks for the Halloween skins may not have fed the skin desire for a lot of players, and the Fiery Goat of Doom is likely to be too expensive for some.

4) No skins in BLC's are for things that there are few to no alternatives for. There's also the price. It's easier to ignore BL Weapon sets in gamble boxes if you want one skin and can farm the gold to get that one skin on the TP. The most expensive seems to be less than 1K gold. The majority are a lot less. The only alternative to playing mount roulette is to buy all 30 skins for 9600 gems. At the current gold-gems rate that would take over 2900 gold or $120 US. While that may be chump change for the few, it is not going to be for the many.

5) If you buy BLC skins you buy the one skin you want. If you farm keys and get tickets, you pick the skin you want. With the license, the odds on disappointment increase the fewer mount skins in the pool one actually likes. While both systems are RNG, the differences between the systems are significant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I come back to this thread and still see that this thread is filled with people fighting over what is "proper business," how to define "gambling" and what they believe the price should be and how a new system can be implemented.

I want you PvPers (poster versus posters -- get it?! ha ha) to know that YOU.ARE.NOT.EMPLOYED.BY.ANET: You were never in that meeting (and you never will be) where this was first brought up, never in that meeting when $$$ and RNG were discussed and you were never there at the meeting when this was given the go. Stop arguing over how much the skins should cost or how the skins should have been provided. The more you argue, the more this becomes a fight over business practice and money; which, I am sure, was already fought over at the meetings -- or had a bunch of 'yes men' agree to a higher-up's decision. This only allows ANet to believe that we cannot agree between each other so why should they even change anything if it's an 'honest fight over business philosophy.'

I want ANet to know that some of us leave it up to you to decide whether you will change it and how it will be changed. Some people want to have the RNG removed (>60%), tiny bit wish just the price be lowered (<10%) while a good portion want to see both changed (~16%) [see the poll for further details and for a current %].

Again, please do not take this thread's 'discussion' as your means to show that a disagreement is a disagreement... because only <10% of people think that you're in the OK while ~90% ask for a change. The arguments between the 90% of how to make micro-changes shouldn't matter since they are making a huge deal over small things.

In the end... just understand we wish for a (noticeable) change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to put 10$ in gems maybe once or twice a month for outfits, gliders, etc. Now, with those insane prices, i fell like i should stop buying gems. I fell like it will just keep on getting worse, and I don't wanna pay that much for a game. If nothing changes, you will loose a lot of customers. I will keep on playing since i like the game, but don't count on me for anything else than buying expansions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@fizzypetal.7936 said:There has been a lot of conjecture on why ArenaNet took the decision to issue 31 mount skins in one hit, 30 that can only be acquired through an RNG based system - unless you can afford to just buy the 30 bundle.

Their method of selling isn't a deal breaker for me at all. I have a choice. Today my choice is I won't play the mount skin lottery because my RNG luck is rubbish and there will likely be other skins that come up on the Gem Store that I can buy outright and will be really super happy about. I get so much more out of the game then just gem store stuff so I'll keep playing and as and when things come up that are must haves I'll continue to purchase gems. I don't play any other games, this doesn't have a sub, there is no loot or node competition, it has beautiful maps and the most customisation of any game I've played which is part and parcel why I've been playing since Beta. In the main, I'm a pretty happy customer.

Yep, bummer that I can't buy outright the mount skins I want. But not a deal breaker and certainly not something I'm upset about. It doesn't mean it is any less valid for someone else to be really upset - after all, who am I to decide for someone else what is or is not important to them or why?

That said, it would be really great if ArenaNet would give us a bit of clarity so this issue could be discussed in a less 'animated' manner or be resolved full stop.

ArenaNet:

  1. Why are the mount skins only available in RNG based lootboxes?
  2. Will the opinions that have been expressed by the players in the GW2 Official forums, on Reddit and elsewhere outside these forums have any influence on how gem store items are put on sale in future?
  3. Given the feedback so far, are there any discussions about tweaking the current RNG system for the mount skins?

Well said. The freedom of choice is paramount to this argument, and I would suggest to reserve your vitriol until there is confirmation that mount skins will ONLY be available through RNG (so you are effectively not given a choice of skin). Feel free to send ANet comments (which I think is absolutely necessary), but try not to get carried away.As for the gambling addiction concern, I would suggest if this pertains to you (or someone close to you), you/the individual should stay away from the game entirely, as well as many other video games (matter of fact, I can't think of any MMO that doesn't employ risk or chance to some degree). It would not be worth the potential danger.IIRC, I don't remember the same outrage over the Ecto Gambling, which has the potential to be MUCH worse. This feels like a "we want it and that's why it's unfair" argument, which doesn't really stand up.

IMHO, when it's all said and done, it's a skin. Whether you agree that the end game is entirely cosmetic (I don't, but I don't play for that reason) or not, your gameplay is not affected. I bought two adoption licenses because I wanted access to the additional dying options for a couple mounts (I didn't really care which ones). I received a jackal and springer mount, and if I had any problem with that (I would have preferred a raptor by a slight margin), I can only blame myself; it is explicitly explained what I was getting. I doubt I will buy any more, but it's a possibility.

As for children playing the game, sorry... that's the responsibility of the parents. ANet shouldn't be given the right to parent our children. This is akin to saying that no movie should ever be made showing fighting because it will encourage children to be violent, or no song should include explicit lyrics. It is our responsibility as parents to monitor the actions of our children, not ANet's.

Finally, I do agree the skins should be limited to what mounts you have unlocked (although this has potential for abuse as well), at least when it comes to the griffon. Not everyone has that kind of gold to drop and the griffon is supposed to be a "legendary" mount anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a thought: i would actually be completely fine with the system in place if the price were halved to 200 gems per roll. that way if you don't get what you were hoping for it's cheap enough that it stings less, and Anet gets an increased likelihood that people will roll again while also not cheating people out of hundreds of dollars for randomized virtual cosmetics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Dynastesaurus.2301 said:if marketing or whoever decides they have to release something as a loot box I would much rather be guaranteed something I don't have than get a bunch of repeat skins.Or complete trash. Box rewards need some reworks, still.

I can handle the RNG of it, but I don't appreciate the large price tag on getting booby prizes, though. Maybe 200-250 gems wouldn't feel so bad, and/or some better bundles beyond 1, 10, and $120 to unlock all. A 3-pack for 800 gems, perhaps?

Which still wouldn't really help against getting skimmer skins, all of which are werid and on a mount that sees almost no use. :|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@goji.4172 said:a thought: i would actually be completely fine with the system in place if the price were halved to 200 gems per roll. that way if you don't get what you were hoping for it's cheap enough that it stings less, and Anet gets an increased likelihood that people will roll again while also not cheating people out of hundreds of dollars for randomized virtual cosmetics

I wouldn't. I like picking exactly what I want. What if I bought 4 random chances (800 gems - around the price of a glider skin) and I still didn't get a skin I wanted? What if they were all ugly (to me)? Or if they were all for mounts I didn't use regularly? No, I would rather just spend 700 gems for 1 skin that I choose. I won't buy mount skins at all any other way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lilyanna.9361 said:

@troops.8276 said:

@Lilyanna.9361 said:

@GreyWolf.8670 said:

@Lilyanna.9361 said:

@GreyWolf.8670 said:

@pah.4931 said:

@GreyWolf.8670 said:

@pah.4931 said:

@SmirkDog.3160 said:

@pah.4931 said:They are trying to make MORE money. Which isn't inherently evil by itself. That is what I am saying.

Sorry to dispel the illusion for you here, but greed isn't exactly
not
evil.

But it's not greed. It's business. If this was the most played MMO with a sub, you'd have a point. But it's not. It's an aging game in a declining genre. It needs to show growth or it's harder to convince "the masters" to keep it running.

(I mean. Sure, it could be greed. But I am arguing that it probably isn't.)

((ask yourself ... if you ran a company, would you not take more money????))

It's greed. They could have just as easily put the separate skins on the store. They just wanted the capture the percentage of people that didn't get the skin they wanted the first time and make them pay more.

Wanting more money is NOT the definition of greed. You could easily work for $8 per hour. Do you? Or are you greedy? You are greedy aren't you!? (see.)

Maybe they are preventing layoffs by doing this. Is it greedy to keep people with families employed and thousands of people enjoying a video game? Hmmm.

Yes, it is the definition of greed. This really isn't difficult. My income and what I desire to spend have nothing to factoring into the definition of a word.

greed[ɡrēd]NOUN
intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.

Then, we, as humans, are all greedy by definition.

You can label yourself if you choose.

Oh look, an insult. No, by nature we are selfish, greedy, or judgement.

Greed created the drive for humanity to do things, along with various other feelings.

If you want to debate this (which is pointless) the moment you think: 'I want more than this person' than that is greed. Technically yes, businesses are greedy, but at that case if you work for a business you want more money, therefore you are greedy. The money you earn, should be enough to give you basic necessities, but as humans WE, as a race, always want more. That's how we can progress and also how we can faltered.

I'm sorry everything is not radiant, holy, or justice-filled for you but that is how this world works buttercup.

It's an interesting and varied field of research and study, human nature and it's evolution, consciousness, psychology and neuroscience to name but a few. There is not all ways consensus between or even within these areas. I find the duality of us humans very interesting. An individual can indeed be very greedy and selfish to some at times (and so much worse besides) and yet also display incredible empathy, sharing and altruism to others, even strangers.I do hope you can see that other side to humanity and not view all as a product of the worst parts, as the world and you becomes a darker place with out it. Imagine why someone is at work to ask for a raise in the first place, for most of the world today and throughout vast tracts of history its to provide for family and that drive is born out of love. Whether it's picking berries or getting eaten by a lion (Either that or can you show me the link to the new research that proves your theory)

Not dark my friend.I'm actually a very cheerful person with a pretty kitten good life.

But personal life aside, I am a logical thinkers that takes things what is given to me. What is wrong admitting our default behavior does go to those things? Because any positive could become negative, and negative can become positive. I love to collect things (which is why I play this game), but eventually it could become excessive collectiving. Another person could drink wine, but that has the risk in turning into alcoholism. Someone could love storing things, but eventually that can turn into hoarding.

This logic can apply to anything that we do in life. And as sentient creature we have been taught that those things are bad. We are not objective. We are full of fallacy. We are biased by default. We have to prune and train ourselves to not react on basic instinct. There have been studies after studies of several situations when you allow humans to do what they want. Giving them power, to deciding if someone lives or die. It can go on and on.

Yes, as a emotional response I can say that is very dark outlook or even a cynical outlook of human beings, but at the end of the day it is just fact. It has proven factual, and at that point that is like me trying to argue whether or not if we are going to die. Again, sorry if you or anyone else was expecting righteous behaviors as our absolute default nature, but it's just not the case. At the end of the day, it does boil down to every man for himself unless we are taught/trained ourselves to think and act morally right.

Hmm. Many disagree. None have been proven right either way. (As in within and by the actual scientific community) And again you seek a definitive answer. All good or all bad, nothing in between, and again you assert facts. The school of thought you refer too on this is one of many in the field of reductionist psychology (if I remember correctly) and not entirely built on the most modern of principles either, but neither is it ancient in that sense.An interesting thing to consider is that we are social animals. The competition between extended families or tribes has gone on for a very very long time. An individuals ability to pass on genes comes from the groups strength, and ability to pass on genes, and that comes not from the greed of the individuals within it but from its social cohesion. Now I could expand this point but I'm sure you have enough intelligence and openness to run through millions of years of evolution once with all people being individually selfish and again being individually selfless. Logically I cannot see how we would ever have survived this long if the former were true or if greed alone was the drive behind putting ourselves through hell for nothing but keeping our families alive (which is what about 90% of the actual worlds population does everyday). Of course none of this had anything to do with rng lootboxes. Or does it? No. Or maybe it does....

Oh and it's been proven that if you leave a fish out of water for long enough it drowns but that doesn't mean the natural default state of a fish is drowning. Observer bias.

And thats why rng loot boxes are bad because evolution? See I wasn't derailing the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Djinn.9245 said:

@goji.4172 said:a thought: i would actually be completely fine with the system in place if the price were halved to 200 gems per roll. that way if you don't get what you were hoping for it's cheap enough that it stings less, and Anet gets an increased likelihood that people will roll again while also not cheating people out of hundreds of dollars for randomized virtual cosmetics

I wouldn't. I like picking exactly what I want. What if I bought 4 random chances (800 gems - around the price of a glider skin) and I still didn't get a skin I wanted? What if they were all ugly (to me)? Or if they were all for mounts I didn't use regularly? No, I would rather just spend 700 gems for 1 skin that I choose. I won't buy mount skins at all any other way.

id prefer that too, but with the established system already in the game all i can really hope for at this point is a price cut : (

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kelian Ravenwood.4130 said:

@fizzypetal.7936 said:There has been a lot of conjecture on why ArenaNet took the decision to issue 31 mount skins in one hit, 30 that can only be acquired through an RNG based system - unless you can afford to just buy the 30 bundle.

Their method of selling isn't a deal breaker for me at all. I have a choice. Today my choice is I won't play the mount skin lottery because my RNG luck is rubbish and there will likely be other skins that come up on the Gem Store that I can buy outright and will be really super happy about. I get so much more out of the game then just gem store stuff so I'll keep playing and as and when things come up that are must haves I'll continue to purchase gems. I don't play any other games, this doesn't have a sub, there is no loot or node competition, it has beautiful maps and the most customisation of any game I've played which is part and parcel why I've been playing since Beta. In the main, I'm a pretty happy customer.

Yep, bummer that I can't buy outright the mount skins I want. But not a deal breaker and certainly not something I'm upset about. It doesn't mean it is any less valid for someone else to be really upset - after all, who am I to decide for someone else what is or is not important to them or why?

That said, it would be really great if ArenaNet would give us a bit of clarity so this issue could be discussed in a less 'animated' manner or be resolved full stop.

ArenaNet:
  1. Why are the mount skins only available in RNG based lootboxes?
  2. Will the opinions that have been expressed by the players in the GW2 Official forums, on Reddit and elsewhere outside these forums have any influence on how gem store items are put on sale in future?
  3. Given the feedback so far, are there any discussions about tweaking the current RNG system for the mount skins?

Well said. The freedom of choice is paramount to this argument, and I would suggest to reserve your vitriol until there is confirmation that mount skins will ONLY be available through RNG (so you are effectively not given a choice of skin). Feel free to send ANet comments (which I think is absolutely necessary), but try not to get carried away.As for the gambling addiction concern, I would suggest if this pertains to you (or someone close to you), you/the individual should stay away from the game entirely, as well as many other video games (matter of fact, I can't think of any MMO that doesn't employ risk or chance to some degree). It would not be worth the potential danger.IIRC, I don't remember the same outrage over the Ecto Gambling, which has the potential to be MUCH worse. This feels like a "we want it and that's why it's unfair" argument, which doesn't really stand up.

IMHO, when it's all said and done, it's a skin. Whether you agree that the end game is entirely cosmetic (I don't, but I don't play for that reason) or not, your gameplay is not affected. I bought two adoption licenses because I wanted access to the additional dying options for a couple mounts (I didn't really care which ones). I received a jackal and springer mount, and if I had any problem with that (I would have preferred a raptor by a slight margin), I can only blame myself; it is explicitly explained what I was getting. I doubt I will buy any more, but it's a possibility.

As for children playing the game, sorry... that's the responsibility of the parents. ANet shouldn't be given the right to parent our children. This is akin to saying that no movie should ever be made showing fighting because it will encourage children to be violent, or no song should include explicit lyrics. It is our responsibility as parents to monitor the actions of our children, not ANet's.

Finally, I do agree the skins should be limited to what mounts you have unlocked (although this has potential for abuse as well), at least when it comes to the griffon. Not everyone has that kind of gold to drop and the griffon is supposed to be a "legendary" mount anyway.

So people complaining that right now there is not enough choices on how to get the things they want is to invoke that freedom of choice is paramount against it?

And that addictions simple just don't do it silly.

On kids I absolutely agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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