Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged] - Page 54 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]

1515254565761

Comments

  • Galactic.6453Galactic.6453 Member ✭✭
    edited November 10, 2017

    @Zero Day.2594 said:

    @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.

  • troops.8276troops.8276 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 10, 2017

    @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)

  • Lilyanna.9361Lilyanna.9361 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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:
    WoW
    FF
    BDO
    SWTOR

    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.

  • pah.4931pah.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.

  • @Galactic.6453 said:

    @Zero Day.2594 said:

    @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.

    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.

  • pah.4931pah.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.

  • Lilyanna.9361Lilyanna.9361 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 10, 2017

    @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 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.

  • troops.8276troops.8276 Member ✭✭✭

    @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"

  • 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.

  • @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.

    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -- Santayana

  • 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.

  • @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.

  • 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

  • Rauderi.8706Rauderi.8706 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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. :|

    Many alts! Handle it!

    "A condescending answer might as well not be an answer at all."
    -Eloc Freidon.5692

  • Djinn.9245Djinn.9245 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 10, 2017

    @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.

  • troops.8276troops.8276 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 10, 2017

    @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.

  • @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 : (

  • Erasculio.2914Erasculio.2914 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Lilyanna.9361 said:
    No, by nature we are selfish, greedy, or judgement.

    That's usually said as an excuse for people to do selfish, greedy things. It's not really true, and saying that's how "we" are is a blatant generalization.

    "Tomorrow my master chokes on his own whip!" - Lore of Skaen, PoE

  • troops.8276troops.8276 Member ✭✭✭

    @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.

  • IndigoSundown.5419IndigoSundown.5419 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    @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.

    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -- Santayana

  • Kalibri.5861Kalibri.5861 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 10, 2017

    @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.

  • Fluffball.8307Fluffball.8307 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 10, 2017

    @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.

  • @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.

    Do not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

  • Kalibri.5861Kalibri.5861 Member ✭✭✭

    @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.

  • kharmin.7683kharmin.7683 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 10, 2017

    @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.

    I am a very casual player.
    Very.
    Casual.

  • @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.

  • @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?

  • 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.

  • @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.