Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]


Recommended Posts

@Kalibri.5861 said:

@troops.8276 said:ArenaNet is a wholly owned subsidiary of NCsoft Corp (not everyone may know this)

NCsoft shares have been on an upward climb since 2015 (no data about before) starting at about $200 usd (then) and peaked this year at about $475. There was a slight drop on the 9th of this month. Currently at $420 usd.

Q3 earning reports for NCsoft are out and all though it doesn't look amazing for GW2 on first glance neither does it look like they're struggling for cash. $18,000,000 usd (if I remember right) in sales for Q3 off the back of about one week of PoF sales. It is a clear spike obviously due to the ex pac. NCsoft net profit was about a third maybe of total sales. I looked at it the other day so I might be a bit shaky on things but thats the jist of it.

Or in other words, enough with the whole "maybe they have to use this 'questionable sales technique' to save the poor wee Asura babies and keep the wolves at bay" nonsense.

Oh and it seems that there's still a lot of traffic in the gem store after the massive spike when mount skins dropped if sites that track these things are too believed. So I'm sure the plan worked out very nicely.

@Kalibri.5861 said:

@Ardid.7203 said:Something that just popped in my brain by itself:There are a bunch of people who look at this issue and think Anet must be financially struggling, or they will never use this low tactics to monetize player numbers.But, what if it is the other way around? What if they feel so comfortable with the actual standing of the game, that they don't fear to implement widely unpopular commercial strategies to catch the unaware or gullible?

GW2 sales make it seem like the game is somewhat in decline, but we don't really know the story on production costs, so it looks... not great, but uncertain.

(not aiming this at you directly btw, sorry)

No apology necessary, and no offence taken. I think it's an interesting subject.

The thing is, as I said, this is sales (assuming total revenue including boxes and gems), not profit, which means it's not reflective of operating or overhead costs. Without those numbers, making assumptions on ArenaNet's financial solvency is hard to do. I agree though... I don't think they're at death's door, but the trend does show a gradual decline, and perhaps this adoption fiasco is in response to that. Either at the hands of ArenaNet or (I think more likely) NCSoft.

It could just be a general bandwagoning of an awful but popular monetisation strategy, of course, which would pretty much be the worst-case scenario. The 'ArenaNet in financial trouble' argument is just people trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I know it's all pure speculation really but I think what little data we have leans towards things still being healthy but that is just my opinion (I looked up salaries, overall operating costs, etc and inferred a lot, all ways risky).

I too think it most likely that the parent company may be pushing this. Loot boxes, cash shops, p2w and gambling are viewed much more positively in their domestic market. I wonder if that has influenced the decision and maybe not appreciated how negatively its viewed in the eu/na market. But again, speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^You are maybe correct about publisher pushing changes. I hope this doesn't end up like the community of some other games I've played... toxic and bleeding players over a monetization issue pushed by a foreign publisher without their finger on the pulse of the playerbase.

I am against this system of monetization, but also against splitting this community into a toxic disaster area over it.

I'm happy for those who won out and got something nice. I hope that if they choose to roll back this decision they will make an equitable choice for the people who bought and came out on top. (No, I did not buy any.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@AlexanderDracul.7492 said:Anyone know if there's a response on this topic from Anet yet?

Doesn't seem like it. I understand that with a decision as unpopular as this one, they'll need to work for a little while on exactly how to word their PR statement, but there better be one. If they just ignore this, I'm done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they're being silent trying to "weather the storm" then it becomes increasingly more important to not stop your voices from being heard loud and clear. I sincerely hope that the delayed response is due to long reflection about how to actually word a written response to this dilemma. That response will either exacerbate the situation or win some broken hearts back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Rashagar.8349 said:

Kicking people who've bought these skins from parties.(Along with justifications for why they believe acting like a totalitarian geebag was morally right of them).Verbal harassment/abuse of people who've bought these skins in in-game chat.

There's no need for such rude action.

Much more decent : Bring in your Asura /laugh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still against the RNG and lootboxes of the mounts being introduced with the reasons I stated when it first came out, but I will say this. I am glad it happened because that decision to introduce them made me go back to my Steam library and play some games I have forgotten about with no lootbox mentality in them. So I have to thank A-net for forcing me to take a break and play some other great games because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Aryan Arlande.6184 said:

@Rashagar.8349 said:

Kicking people who've bought these skins from parties.(Along with justifications for why they believe acting like a totalitarian geebag was morally right of them).Verbal harassment/abuse of people who've bought these skins in in-game chat.

There's no need for such rude action.

Much more decent : Bring in your Asura /laugh

I did that on the day they were added to the store.I wasn't even thinking about the randomness of it. I just saw really ugly/stupid looking Griffons all over so my Asura had a field day with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This pisses a lot of people of, because a lot of people like this game and a lot of people trusted anet to not be THAT greedy, a lot of people want to support you and see this game become better and greater. GW2 has its issues but it is a great game, it could be much better even, there is so much potential. It's just sad to see that potential get wasted behind greed, lies and betrayal.

I'm just so disappointed.I love this game, so this just saddens me on a deeper level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only like 2-3 skins in this pack and I, for sure, have no intentions to spend my money on skins I don't like. The current system is forcing us to keep paying until we get the skins we really want. A horrible, horrible system just to milk money out of people.

  1. Make every skin available for purchase in store separately, but make it more expensive than actual contracts. (Say 700-800 gems per skin YOU CHOOSE)
  2. Make bundles for each mount type that unlocks all skins for that mount and/or random skin for that said mount.
  3. Keep the current adoption contracts for those who like the element of surprise.That way you make everyone happy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Wolfheart.7483 said:.

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

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

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

If the skin distribution is weighted and it doesn't say that on the store then it is absolutely a scam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lilyanna.9361 said:@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?

I have always had the money to pay for a sub. The issue isn't that $120 dollars is a big expense for me personally, it's that as a whale, I don't feel that I should contribute to this really egregious gouging of the playerbase in general.

That said, in a sub game, a lot more content is shifted to the game (mount quests, for example), instead of just dumping most of them in the cash shop. You get the result that, say, WoW has hundreds of mounts in game and a dozen in the cash shop, while GW2 has 5 in the game, and 31 in the cash shop, 30 via RNG. Yes, I can pay for that. So what? Most people can't. They have to gamble.

I don't pay for statted gear (I never did on AION). I pay flat money for skins I like if I like them now and then, as long as the majority stay in game and the in-game ones are good. I don't have kids, I don't have a car, and I live in Vegas, so my spending money goes to games I like, or my garden patio, or more clothes, or dinner at a nice restaurant. What I don't do is gamble, ironically.

This isn't about my personal ability to afford things, which some of you proponents of this system suggest. I just think that we whales need to stand up to unfair pricing schemes because we're the ones ANet is really targeting, and regular players are shafted by contrast. I would willingly pay a monthly sub to THIS game if it improved things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone noted above this just saved me a lot of money. There are three skins that I would have happily bought if offered on their own but Anet had to go and put it behind RNG gambling. I am very disappointed. Not in the skin availablity but in Anet. Just makes me sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy dye packs or BLK, and I won't be buying these. Where I would have spent at least 800 gems on the Tawny Hare, and possibly bought two or three more if I could buy the ones I want. I paid cash to get enough gems for LS2, and am considering doing so again for another item, but not for these skins. When I spent money IRL or in a game, I expect to know what I am getting for that money.

And please don't harass and insult players that have bought them. Everyone is different and can make their own decisions, and bullying them will not make them change their mind. Anet created this problem, not other players.

(If this is a duplicate post, my apologies. My tablet is acting weird.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fluffball.8307 said:

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.

Not everything has to be about changing the world to be a legit cause to bitch.

But, since we're going there, I AM a paraplegic and my sweetie is a quadriplegic, and we have money because this is a great town for freelance artists. (I've even worked on 3d skinning.) We generally eat out every night because cooking every night wrecks my back. We are often met with surprise when we go to any kind of establishment. Our service dog in particular is sometimes an issue; other times a place won't have accessible seating, or they have very few. Many times we'll get poor service because it's assumed that disabled people are poor and won't tip well.

We do, though. We usually tip a minimum of a quarter of what the meal costs. Even if something is comped, we still tip for the full price. If we like a place, we often go back several times a month.

If we get bad service, if we get refused because of our dog, if we get seated behind the pillar/corner/etc so the restaurant looks like they only serve able-bodied 20-somethings, etc, we damn well complain, not just for our sake, but for any disabled people who come here later and don't need to be treated that way, either. We are often the ONLY disabled couple that establishments, cab drivers, bus drivers, etc, etc, have ever encountered. We are often the ONLY disabled couple with a lot of cash that they've ever encountered.

Is being able to eat $150 overpriced sushi with my sweetie and my dog under the table going to change the world? No. But it's still wrong that I don't have the option and/or I only can if I leave my service dog at home, so I speak up, I leave bad yelp reviews, I call managers, and I call my lawyer if I have to, and then I go spend that money at a restaurant that DOES support fair practices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Draygo.9473 said:

@AlexanderDracul.7492 said:Anyone know if there's a response on this topic from Anet yet?

3 posts on the subject from Gaile of the I've gathered feedback and submitted a report, there were meetings and keep giving feedback variety.

So, it's on a good way to the usual Anet reaction: posting they have all the feedback they need, locking the thread, and then trying to forget anyone said anything at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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