Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]


Recommended Posts

@goji.4172 said:

@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 : (

I hope for a good deal more than that. I hope for Anet to correct this marketing mistake. Lowering the price won't make any difference to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am posting this because it was suggested by the GM Magical Cowlick Fairy from support@guildwars2.com that I do so. This is the support ticket I submitted which basically says what others already have in this location.

"I went to look at the new mounts but noticed there price is completely off.A random chance for a random mount skin is the same price as the previously established (not discounted) halloween mounts. That and one of the mounts is 2000 gems all by itself. This can't possibly be correct. It seems like price gouging. If it is correct I and I'm sure others are ashamed of ANET. I understand you need to make money but be real. That is $10.00 for two random chances. Hope you don't get two bunnies that you never use. Sorry not buying it here. What do I think is fair you may be asking. Well,200gems for random chance300 gems for random chance of a specific type,400 gems for specific skin800 gems for fancy pants skin that is presently 2000gems."

Yes, even after 4 days, I still think it is overpriced. Very similar to the initial HOT expansion cost. They fixed that, hopefully they fix this. Shame shame shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Djinn.9245 said:

@goji.4172 said:

@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 : (

I hope for a good deal more than that. I hope for Anet to correct this marketing mistake. Lowering the price won't make any difference to me.

AgreedThe RNG is the problemI am absolutely sure this outrage wouldnt have happened without it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unpopular opinion incoming...

I myself am also not a fan of the RNG aspect of it, but that's where I stop falling in line with the vocal majority. I have to wonder how bad this will really turn out to be for the game. Sure, getting all the skins (or just the ones you want) could cost more money than you bargained for (don't forget that a lot of people were practically screaming "Take my money!" when it came to mount skins and also claimed to be willing to pay prices much higher than what we have now; but, apparently, there are unspoken conditions attached to these exclamations we've been seeing so much lately). A lot of people want to be able to choose which skin they get. I get that. It's what I want too, truth be told. But I can't be as mad as a lot of you seem to be. Disappointed, yes, but not to the point that ANet have lost my faith or good will.

A lot of people have been stating the negative feedback and (supposed) consequences of RNG loot boxes. But if these are really so detrimental to the gaming industry's revenue, if they really cost the companies money instead of delivering more income, then why do they still exist? As a practice apparently it is working, because companies don't tend to invest in means that have proven to be detrimental to their revenue. No matter what you think of it in an ideological sense, the practice is meant to make money and it's succeeding in that regard. This money is needed to continue the game, to develop new content and keep it online. I'm going to go out on a line here and say this is what we all ultimately want. This kind of outrage does not occur for something that people don't care or feel for. Apparently, though, we only want this game to continue under certain (personal) circumstances. We want it to succeed our way, not their way, or the realistic way (by making money). But if their way ultimately ends up earning more money than ours, then what? I think we can all agree that whatever ANet's manifesto, whatever our own motivations and desires, making money to continue is every company's top priority. Sometimes they have to make concessions to not alienate too many of their customers, sometimes we have to make concessions to allow the company to keep doing the things they do. It can be either that or no more company (no more GW2). The fact is revenue has been declining for this game. It's nothing overly dramatic, but it's a trend that isn't stopping. At some time it will reach the point where business people will draw the conclusion and decide the game isn't worth spending time and money on anymore, and they will go on to their next venture.

The point is, I see a lot of speculation in this thread. People claiming that this or that WILL happen if ANet continue this trend, as if they are all experts in probability science or have some way to see into the future. Now I am the first to state that I am not, but all these people who reason one way should take note that there are other possible outcomes as well. It might very well be that this concept of RNG loot boxes for mount skins does add more revenue than the single glider skins (or outfits). This could show that there are enough people who do not have a problem with the tactic, whether it be because it's mount skins this time, because they feel more for certain mount skins than any previous glider skin, or because they don't have a problem with the tactic at all, regardless of what it offers. All this outrage will seem rather silly then, especially from people who threaten to leave the game or not spend a single penny on it anymore. We all know that people make threats easily, but again there are different motivations for said threats. Not all people make threats with the pure intent to actually carry them out once the line has been reached. Threats are also made to intimidate, to impress certain feelings as being quite strong, to bully people into doing something they wouldn't otherwise have done. Not all threats are made to actually be carried out, especially not further along the line. People will jump in and attach themselves to the majority, echo their statements without the same intensity of feeling behind it (it's called group dynamics). I don't know statistics but I can tell you not everyone who threatened to quit in this thread will actually quit. Not everyone who claimed they won't spend a penny will never spend a penny on this game anymore. In any mob there is always a degree of false outrage. A lot of people also react from the gut, i.e. based in their emotions. Emotions change, they ebb and flow and don't always have the same intensity. They can even change over time, when perspectives change, something else catches their attention or new facts and evidence are presented. One of the reasons why there's such a vocal response to this is because at the moment there is not much else that draws more attention in the game. Mount skins have been highly anticipated for a while now, and naturally people gravitate towards it like bees to honey.

What I'm trying to say is, the tone of this thread has quickly grown into one of doom, one that spells disaster for ANet if they continue along this line. The only difference from a situation of not having this outrage is that the result would've been the same anyway. With continuing trends, this game will cease development because revenue is steadily declining, not increasing. With the exception of BL chests and dye kits we have always been able to choose exactly what we want from the gemstore. There is never any doubt or RNG involved besides those few exceptions. With that tactic, revenue has been declining (though not necessarily because of it). It is very well possible that the release of a 3rd expansion depends on what happens to the revenue stream post-PoF. Now let's say that everyone in this thread who has made their threats and stated their ultimatums will follow through on it. Revenue will drop further and the game will cease development, population will drop and people will go on to other games, not because they choose to but because they are forced to by a large group of people whose priority is their ideology, not the game they profess to love so much (or not so much anymore; I realize there are those that have been dissatisfied with the game for a longer time already, and for those people this might be the final push). Now don't get me wrong. I am not putting blame on these people for potentially sabotaging the continued existence of this game we all like to play. All I am saying is that this narrative could further damage the game in the opposite way people intend. Now it is stated that this loot box practice will spell the end of GW2 in the long run, while it could very well be our overly emotional response to it that would deliver the same result. If this practice generates more revenue for ANet then I say go for it. Because I choose to continue to play this game over having it end. Whether I personally buy these lootboxes or not, I would be grateful to the ones who do for being able to continue the game, whereas having GW2 end because people abandon the game out of principle over the loot box practice would leave a disappointing aftertaste. And you can say that is a selfish point of view, but it's no less selfish than the other claims that have been made in this thread. I know you are trying to warn ANet, but instead this could very well turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Genei.7502 said:

This just doesn't seem to serve the casual gamers at all. We can't devote that much in game time to amass the gold to convert to gems for this, and we also don't play enough to justify spending that much money to acquire 1 - 2 skins that we might like. So this remains confusing to me, since the hard core players will have plenty of in game money to throw at this problem, how is this bringing more money in for ANet? The gem exchange operates on a bank of gems people have already paid for. If these skins can't be acquired with gold in any way other than the exchange, what encouragement is there to continue to put gems into the exchange?

When this Goat of Doom/Licenses dropped, the gold-for-gems rate rocketed up. Currently, it sits ~30G higher (~121G per 400 gems versus ~91G a week ago). There was a similar increase in the amount of gold gem-spenders get for dropping gems in. Anyone dropping gems into the exchange today gets a better deal than the person who dropped gems in last week. That's the incentive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jaskar.3071 said:AgreedThe RNG is the problemI am absolutely sure this outrage wouldnt have happened without it

I might've bought a skin if they were sold individually. I like some of the Jackal ones, and it's my most used mount. Now they have none of my money, and they've turned me away towards other games that don't sell loot boxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess I'll add my thoughts here. I rolled the dice three times (twice via purchased gems, once via gold to gems) in an attempt to get one of the skins I liked. No luck for me. While I certainly would prefer to just choose the skins I like, I can't complain too much since I willfully took part in the rng.

I spent irl money to get two random skins (knowing they were random), I will not be spending any more money on this. If I were able to choose the skins I want, I would gladly purchase gems for at least 4-5 of the skins. I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but if Anet will let us pick what we want, they will absolutely get more money out of me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fluffball.8307 said:

@Nocturn.8904 said:

@Fluffball.8307 said:I don't care in any way about
any
of this, which I realize is a stupid thing to post, but I want some sort of balance to the likely false outrage of a certain percentage of the population.

Thank you for that wise insight.

Edit: was my sarcasm apparent enough? I didn't want to be too smarmy if I could avoid it, but I want to make sure the point comes across clearly.

It's not insight. It's a bunch of teenagers whining about something thinking they're changing the world by fighting big corporations. In reality, this isn't a big deal, and anet is not North Korea or Comcast or whatever the kids are raging against these days. This is a complete non issue.

Did you... just refute my sarcastic compliment for you? Way to miss the point.

We're not going to sit here and argue that nations will collapse and the Earth will be destroyed as a direct result of mount adoption licenses. Acting like we are is hilariously disingenuous. What we will do is express disappointment about the system and make it clear we're not buying into it, which is a right any consumer would have. These are the official forums, so this is the place to do it. If it's a nonissue for you, congratulations for being so above it, but you're not doing anyone any favors by being the armchair philosopher here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mount Adoptions RNG should be 200 gems each. If you want to buy a certain skin then it should be 600 - 800 gems each. Keep the bundles if you want or not but this seems like the best way to go about it. That means if you want to gamble $10 would get you 4 mount skins OR a the skin you want right away. Easy Peasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@revodeel.2651 said:Guess I'll add my thoughts here. I rolled the dice three times (twice via purchased gems, once via gold to gems) in an attempt to get one of the skins I liked. No luck for me. While I certainly would prefer to just choose the skins I like, I can't complain too much since I willfully took part in the rng.

I spent irl money to get two random skins (knowing they were random), I will not be spending any more money on this. If I were able to choose the skins I want, I would gladly purchase gems for at least 4-5 of the skins. I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but if Anet will let us pick what we want, they will absolutely get more money out of me.

Unfortunately, what you did is exactly what Anet is going for: first you spend the amount of money you actually want to spend. Then when you don't get what you want, you spend a little more. The fact that the 3rd try was gold to gems doesn't actually matter since someone bought those gems and gold to gems encourages more people to buy gems and convert them to gold. Either way Anet made more money than you were originally going to spend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@jguerin.8261 said: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.

This is a big part of the problem, though. ArenaNet doesn't communicate. A lot of this noise could have been avoided if they'd discussed it with us to begin with, and there are many ways in which gaming companies can do that. A development diary or roadmap which said, "Hey guys, we have a financial need to implement this system because the game isn't sustainable, and here you can see the costs versus revenues," or whatever would have gone a very long way to smoothing this out before it became the disaster that it was bound to be.

I personally feel like ArenaNet would be very well served by being more open with changes generally. They could save a lot of money by producing gem shop stuff that players actually want to buy. They could monetise popular items and ditch stuff nobody wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fluffball.8307 said:

@Djinn.9245 said:

@Fluffball.8307 said:

@Djinn.9245 said:

@Fluffball.8307 said:

@Nocturn.8904 said:

@Fluffball.8307 said:I don't care in any way about
any
of this, which I realize is a stupid thing to post, but I want some sort of balance to the likely false outrage of a certain percentage of the population.

Thank you for that wise insight.

Edit: was my sarcasm apparent enough? I didn't want to be too smarmy if I could avoid it, but I want to make sure the point comes across clearly.

It's not insight. It's a bunch of teenagers whining about something thinking they're changing the world by fighting big corporations. In reality, this isn't a big deal, and anet is not North Korea or Comcast or whatever the kids are raging against these days. This is a complete non issue.

I'm glad it's a non-issue for you. As for customers being able to change big corporations: have you heard of CocaCola? Read up on New Coke.

Oh the customers absolutely can change corporations. And what better issue to rage over than mount skins? This will be on CNN for making the world a better place.

Oh I see, I'm only allowed to criticize corporations if the subject is making the world a better place? Sorry, as a consumer I have many issues I am concerned with, including something that is supposed to be entertainment, not a rigged means of trying to get more of my money than I am willing to spend.

No, of course you can do anything you want. But this whole thing is pretty silly, you must admit. Either buy them or don't: the end.

You should definitely handle this and any other situation as you like. What I don't understand is why you're trying to influence how other people handle the situation. Why not just let them also do as they like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Djinn.9245 said:

@Fluffball.8307 said:

@Djinn.9245 said:

@Fluffball.8307 said:

@Djinn.9245 said:

@Fluffball.8307 said:

@Nocturn.8904 said:

@Fluffball.8307 said:I don't care in any way about
any
of this, which I realize is a stupid thing to post, but I want some sort of balance to the likely false outrage of a certain percentage of the population.

Thank you for that wise insight.

Edit: was my sarcasm apparent enough? I didn't want to be too smarmy if I could avoid it, but I want to make sure the point comes across clearly.

It's not insight. It's a bunch of teenagers whining about something thinking they're changing the world by fighting big corporations. In reality, this isn't a big deal, and anet is not North Korea or Comcast or whatever the kids are raging against these days. This is a complete non issue.

I'm glad it's a non-issue for you. As for customers being able to change big corporations: have you heard of CocaCola? Read up on New Coke.

Oh the customers absolutely can change corporations. And what better issue to rage over than mount skins? This will be on CNN for making the world a better place.

Oh I see, I'm only allowed to criticize corporations if the subject is making the world a better place? Sorry, as a consumer I have many issues I am concerned with, including something that is supposed to be entertainment, not a rigged means of trying to get more of my money than I am willing to spend.

No, of course you can do anything you want. But this whole thing is pretty silly, you must admit. Either buy them or don't: the end.

You should definitely handle this and any other situation as you like. What I don't understand is why you're trying to influence how other people handle the situation. Why not just let them also do as they like?

My original post said something along the lines of "I'm only posting 'this is stupid' to counterbalance all the fake outrage." So do whatever you want, I'm only posting here to make the voice of reason that the masses have something incarnate. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and I'm squeaking as a perfectly functioning wheel just for balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kalibri.5861 said:

@jguerin.8261 said: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.

This is a big part of the problem, though. ArenaNet doesn't communicate. A lot of this noise could have been avoided if they'd discussed it with us to begin with, and there are many ways in which gaming companies can do that. A development diary or roadmap which said, "Hey guys, we have a financial need to implement this system because the game isn't sustainable, and here you can see the costs versus revenues," or whatever would have gone a very long way to smoothing this out before it became the disaster that it was bound to be.

The problem is that there is no "need" to implement manipulative systems. The vast majority of companies simply sell products that people want. If people don't want their product, they either change their product until people want it or the company fails. Introducing manipulative systems is a CHOICE (based on low standards IMO), not a NEED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fluffball.8307 said:

No, of course you can do anything you want. But this whole thing is pretty silly, you must admit. Either buy them or don't: the end.

Not really? I don't think this is silly at all. I think this is how the system is intended to work. If the playerbase at large is disappointed in something about the game, wouldn't it be in everybody's best interest to let ANet know that? The players could potentially get a better method of acquiring mount skins, ANet would make money from the new sales being made, and public opinion of the company would improve again. That's what we all want here. If we didn't care about the game, we'd shrug our shoulders and say, "Well, I didn't like GW2 much anyway, no big deal."

There's something to be said for the money ANet can make from whales, I'm sure. I know it's tempting. But especially for GW2, what we need the least right now is a public outcry against ANet. They can't shrug off negative perceptions of them quite like a monolithic company like Blizzard could. If the current players are this upset by it, any new players would be even more scared by a move like this, and the game will feel those effects in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Djinn.9245 said:

@revodeel.2651 said:Guess I'll add my thoughts here. I rolled the dice three times (twice via purchased gems, once via gold to gems) in an attempt to get one of the skins I liked. No luck for me. While I certainly would prefer to just choose the skins I like, I can't complain too much since I willfully took part in the rng.

I spent irl money to get two random skins (knowing they were random), I will not be spending any more money on this. If I were able to choose the skins I want, I would gladly purchase gems for at least 4-5 of the skins. I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but if Anet will let us pick what we want, they will absolutely get more money out of me.

Unfortunately, what you did is exactly what Anet is going for: first you spend the amount of money you actually want to spend. Then when you don't get what you want, you spend a little more. The fact that the 3rd try was gold to gems doesn't actually matter since someone bought those gems and gold to gems encourages more people to buy gems and convert them to gold. Either way Anet made more money than you were originally going to spend.

False. If I could pick the skins I want, I would spend double or more what I've already spent. Before these skins were introduced I planned on spending more (just on mount skins) than I have so far. The method of implementation forced a self-imposed hard stop at three.

Not to say I won't buy or spend more gems. I certainly will. Just not on rng skins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fluffball.8307 said:

@Djinn.9245 said:

@Fluffball.8307 said:

@Nocturn.8904 said:

@Fluffball.8307 said:I don't care in any way about
any
of this, which I realize is a stupid thing to post, but I want some sort of balance to the likely false outrage of a certain percentage of the population.

Thank you for that wise insight.

Edit: was my sarcasm apparent enough? I didn't want to be too smarmy if I could avoid it, but I want to make sure the point comes across clearly.

It's not insight. It's a bunch of teenagers whining about something thinking they're changing the world by fighting big corporations. In reality, this isn't a big deal, and anet is not North Korea or Comcast or whatever the kids are raging against these days. This is a complete non issue.

I'm glad it's a non-issue for you. As for customers being able to change big corporations: have you heard of CocaCola? Read up on New Coke.

Oh the customers absolutely can change corporations. And what better issue to rage over than mount skins? This will be on CNN for making the world a better place.

I think you're downplaying it a bit, and mocking.

This is to do with loot boxes and micro-transactions.

No, it won't make a world a better place. But, it hopefully will make at least a tiny difference in the gaming industry (a tiny place of the world).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Djinn.9245 said:

@Kalibri.5861 said:

@jguerin.8261 said: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.

This is a big part of the problem, though. ArenaNet doesn't communicate. A lot of this noise could have been avoided if they'd discussed it with us to begin with, and there are many ways in which gaming companies can do that. A development diary or roadmap which said, "Hey guys, we have a financial need to implement this system because the game isn't sustainable, and here you can see the costs versus revenues," or whatever would have gone a very long way to smoothing this out before it became the disaster that it was bound to be.

The problem is that there is no "need" to implement manipulative systems. The vast majority of companies simply sell products that people want. If people don't want their product, they either change their product until people want it or the company fails. Introducing manipulative systems is a CHOICE (based on low standards IMO), not a NEED.

I think 'need' is arguable. It's possible that ArenaNet is doing really poorly financially and they feel they have to implement an exploitative (but ultimately very profitable) system no matter what the community response looks like just to keep the game afloat. That said, again, this could simply be an issue of communication because if they worked with us to explain their issue, and began selling more things that players really wanted and fewer that players don't care about (discussed via a dev roadmap, art diary, et cetera), and did so in a reasonable way, then everybody could benefit. They'd waste less time and money and we'd have kinder practices and probably better prices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kalibri.5861 said:A development diary or roadmap which said, "Hey guys, we have a financial need to implement this system because the game isn't sustainable, and here you can see >the costs versus revenues," or whatever would have gone a very long way to smoothing this out before it became the disaster that it was bound to be.

I can't see any board of directors approving such a message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@troops.8276 said:

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.

For the first point, I am suggesting the freedom of choice on a more generalized scale; we have the choice to buy or not to buy based on our desires and expectations. The skins have not been available long enough (IMO) to really speak to our specific choices here, except in the very short-term. I don't believe freedom of choice means that an entity should give you many choices; wouldn't that be infringing upon their freedoms to conduct business the way they see fit? ANet has the same freedoms we have, which includes to offer these items in the manner they wish, then we have the choice to support or not to.

Just as an aside, I support commenting, asking questions and expressing opinions, but what I see a lot of recently is what you suggest: complaining. I wish there was less complaining and more discussion, but I could always choose not to bother with the forums (see what I did there?? :))

On the second point, I am in no way suggesting gambling addictions do not exist, and that temptations to gamble do not exist; I am looking at this from a behavioral point of view. If I have a drinking problem, I should probably stay away from the bar. If I have a spending problem, I should restrict my access to funds. If I have a gambling problem, I should avoid engaging in activities where I will be tempted to gamble. If I want to spend time playing video games and have a gambling problem, I would suggest games that do not include RNG (or, to a lesser degree, random loot drops, as the behavior could be triggered). I know that doesn't sound exactly fair, but as a person who has had experience with behavioral concerns, it would be considered the first line of defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@LED.4739 said: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

This doesn't make sense. First you say the 400 gem price for 1 is "perfectly reasonable". Then the next paragraph you say 9600 gems for 30 is "just insanity". You do realize the 400*30 = 12,000 right? So 9600/30 = 320 is a substantial discount. Do you even know what you are mad at?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ArenaNet,

The mount skin RNG is the main problem. Yes, you can eventually get all of them but not getting the one (or ones) you want without having to pay significantly more than just a fair/reasonable price for the product is unacceptable. The pricing for the solo skin is also out of line. Mount skins should be priced in a manner similar to gliders or outfits - 400 gems is a good baseline with some of the mount skins that ANet believes will be more popular going for more (perhaps up to 800 gems).

If you want to incentivize people to drop cash on mount skins (and not just convert gold to gems), you already have a means of doing that: bundling. If all of the various 30 mount skins were available individually for 400-800 gems each and it would cost the customer 18,000 gems for all 30 of them separately, you could charge: 3000 gems to pick 5, 5000 gems to pick 8; or 12000 gems for all 30. At each of those tiers I suggested (which translate to roughly 950 gold, 1500 gold and 3700 gold if converting gold to gems), fewer and fewer players would have the resources to convert enough gold to gems to afford them. You're presenting players with a decision point to either open their wallet now and take a better deal and get access sooner, or wait and more slowly convert gold to gems and buy the skins over time. A lot more wallets would open for you.

I also want you to understand that this is a serious problem for you. I know you've been purging gold from the game economy recently and the prices of many goods on the TP have fallen (my gold on hand has fallen by more then 1000 since the PoF launch since I've spent a fair amount and no longer earn gold from the TP at the same rate I did before PoF). I suspect your expectation was given what's happened economically more people would be willing to buy with real currency. If you were looking to mounts skins to do that, I think you're wrong and frankly given the implementation you pursued, I hope you are wrong. I actually used a gift card to buy gems recently (before the mount skins were released) and now both my wife and I have 2000 gems banked. You already have that money I spent on those gems, HOWEVER, instead of using them for mount skins my wife and I will likely sit on them and use them for something that later gets put on sale or something more practical that we need (ex. character bag slots). If I'm not spending that money now, I'll have it to spend later. Bottom line: You've lost future sales from both of us that might have included actual cash sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kalibri.5861 said:

...this could simply be an issue of communication because if they worked with us to explain their issue, and began selling more things that players really wanted and fewer that players don't care about (discussed via a dev roadmap, art diary, et cetera), and did so in a reasonable way, then everybody could benefit. They'd waste less time and money and we'd have kinder practices and probably better prices.

There's a ton of wisdom in this statement. Big picture direction led regularly by community input. I think a creative, talented team like the one behind GW2 could work with that input to create content (purchased or otherwise) that would be received incredibly well on a regular basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Djinn.9245 said:

@Kalibri.5861 said:

@jguerin.8261 said: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.

This is a big part of the problem, though. ArenaNet doesn't communicate. A lot of this noise could have been avoided if they'd discussed it with us to begin with, and there are many ways in which gaming companies can do that. A development diary or roadmap which said, "Hey guys, we have a financial need to implement this system because the game isn't sustainable, and here you can see the costs versus revenues," or whatever would have gone a very long way to smoothing this out before it became the disaster that it was bound to be.

The problem is that there is no "need" to implement manipulative systems. The vast majority of companies simply sell products that people want. If people don't want their product, they either change their product until people want it or the company fails. Introducing manipulative systems is a CHOICE (based on low standards IMO), not a NEED.

Someone mentioned in another thread (and I would give credit here if I could find it) some other examples of real-world RNG, and my favorite is McDonald's Monopoly. This is purely subjective data, but many people I know wait for the Monopoly tickets to be attached to large sodas and fries for a chance to win, and McDonald's sells a lot more and their revenues skyrocket during this time (check out the Income Statements for details). Toys in breakfast cereals, baseball cards, even 50/50 raffles for charitable causes all use this tactic. I have never heard someone accusing the local church of low standards due to hosting Bingo...The guarantee of a desired item rarely outweighs the chance at highly desired item; this human behavior is what RNG is all about, and why it's a successful financial model. Not only does the person win the item (if the RNG went the way they wanted), but they also get a manufactured feeling of being "lucky". As pointed out by many, if it wasn't successful it wouldn't be in practice. It doesn't work for everyone, but it does appeal to enough people that it's profitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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