Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged] - Page 56 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]

1535456585961

Comments

  • troops.8276troops.8276 Member ✭✭✭

    @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.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/7bzor8/arenanet_a_complete_history_of_earnings_since_2005/

    (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.

  • Anyone know if there's a response on this topic from Anet yet?

  • @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

  • @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.

  • Kapax.3801Kapax.3801 Member ✭✭✭

    hello, any official response?
    I estimate that at this time the team is aware of the "bad" received that was this new system of obtaining skins, and I would like to know if in the end they will make some change now or in the future.

  • 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.

  • GreyWolf.8670GreyWolf.8670 Member ✭✭✭

    @Urgi.3504 said:
    WP does't understand if you don't go full on rabble rabble, no one will hear you.

    He pretty much said at the beginning of the video he expected people to tune out when he didn't take their specific side. :P

  • @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.

  • rdfaye.4368rdfaye.4368 Member ✭✭✭

    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.

  • SmirkDog.3160SmirkDog.3160 Member ✭✭✭

    @Malafaia.8903 said:
    I guess almost 3k posts speaks for a lot of people, aye?
    Still waiting for some kind of statement from Anet.

    Don't expect much.

    Daud Dreadwyrm | Renegade | Yak's Bend (NA) | I get in trouble a lot apparently

  • Jaskar.3071Jaskar.3071 Member ✭✭
    edited November 10, 2017

    ^
    ingame earnable without gems or gold but instead with achievements would also turn the tides in this outrage i think... (additional to the rng-mounts)

  • rdfaye.4368rdfaye.4368 Member ✭✭✭

    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.)

  • Sylv.5324Sylv.5324 Member ✭✭✭

    @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 kitten.

    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 kitten 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.

  • Astralporing.1957Astralporing.1957 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @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.

    The whole point of a social game is to play with the people you want to play with, not be forced to play with the people you don't.

  • .> @GreyWolf.8670 said:

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    .

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

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

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

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

    So it's ok to call it a scam based on something you have absolutely no evidence of? Seems reasonable.

  • Please see Mike O'Brien's comments on this subject here.

    Gaile Gray
    Communications Manager: ArenaNet
    Fansite & Guild Relations; In-Game Events; Community Showcase Live

  • @Witch of Doom.5739 said:

    So he acknowledges missteps but doesn't sound sorry, and nothing's going to change. Wow. And then there's "... our next planned mount skin releases will focus on individual sales like the Reforged Warhound and bundles like the Spooky Mounts Pack." Does that mean the only way to get a skin will either be one overprice skin at a time or you have to buy a bundle? Color me SUPER DISAPPOINTED.

    You just said nothing will change, and then you state what will change (they will not do it this way again and they will not add anymore skins to the adoption license system) and say you are disappointed. Which is is? Pretty much everyone who was against this said he would pay more if it was not RNG, or that he wants bundles like the halloween bundle. Mike said they will be doing exactly that in the future, and now this is once again not ok?

    YouTube “L2villagejester”.
    People using belittling wording like whining/qqing" are not taken seriously by me
    Same for people posting only to tell others not to post (“deal with it”-posts)

  • @Shikigami.4013 said:

    @Witch of Doom.5739 said:

    So he acknowledges missteps but doesn't sound sorry, and nothing's going to change. Wow. And then there's "... our next planned mount skin releases will focus on individual sales like the Reforged Warhound and bundles like the Spooky Mounts Pack." Does that mean the only way to get a skin will either be one overprice skin at a time or you have to buy a bundle? Color me SUPER DISAPPOINTED.

    You just said nothing will change, and then you state what will change (they will not do it this way again and they will not add anymore skins to the adoption license system) and say you are disappointed. Which is is? Pretty much everyone who was against this said he would pay more if it was not RNG, or that he wants bundles like the halloween bundle. Mike said they will be doing exactly that in the future, and now this is once again not ok?

    I meant nothing is changing in the present set; i.e. no individual skins for sale from the current batch of thirty, already bought skins that are unwanted or unuseable will not be sell-able on the Trading Post. That's what I wanted most, so yes, I am disappointed. I don't know -- none of us do -- if by future individual sales he means they'll be 2000 gems each or not. I did buy the Halloween Spooky pack and like it, but if future bundles don't contain ALL skins that I like, I won't buy those. Does that satisfy you?

  • atomy.3817atomy.3817 Member
    edited November 11, 2017

    They couldn't really change the loot ticket system for the current set of 30 skins, it wouldn't be fair to the people who already got the skins they wanted (aside from doing a full cash refund to everyone who bought gems to use on skins, which would probably be infeasable). It's a bit of a disappointment but at least they aren't continuing the system in the future.

  • @atomy.3817 said:
    They couldn't really change the loot ticket system for the current set of 30 skins, it wouldn't be fair to the people who already got the skins they wanted (aside from doing a full cash refund to everyone who bought gems to use on skins, which would probably be infeasable). It's a bit of a disappointment but at least they aren't continuing the system in the future.

    Exactly, I can understand them not changing this one even if I personally want it to change because people have already bought it. The paperwork and legal matters involved is a major deterrent to change the current system. I am just glad MO promised to not do it again, and they will have more singles and bundles instead which is what we were asking for.

    Is it a shame I won't be getting any of the ones in the 30 pack? Sure. I can get over that though if it means the lootboxes will not be coming back to plague us.

    If Life gives you lemons, put the lemons in a sack and beat up Life for giving you lemons in the first place.

  • I think it's rather easy to just create an npc or something where players could return their unwanted skins for 400 gems and do with their returned gems as they please. Yeah I know you can't convert the gems back into actual money but let's be real they're going to spend them anyway. If they were going to spend them on rng they'll spend them on guaranteed goods as well. So the whole thing about it wouldn't be fair to the people who bought them already is a lame excuse.

  • @Gaile Gray.6029 said:
    Please see Mike O'Brien's comments on this subject here.

    Thank you very much for your effort!

    I appreciate that MO himself made a statement, and while I still think the adoption license system is not the most rewarding way to pay for mount skins due to the rng, i can understand the decision to not change it now.
    I also appreciate the announcement that the coming mount skins will not be affected by rng. Looking forward to spend my money on those :)

  • lordkabal.4857lordkabal.4857 Member
    edited November 11, 2017

    Something tells me this fiasco would have been avoided had they actually let you CHOOSE what skin you wanted instead of making it random. At least that way people would be able to get the skins they want without having to gamble to get them. And to be blunt, there's no reason why they couldn't make an adjustment to the current license system instead of waiting to the next set of skins since each skin has a set value since there is no chance to get a duplicate with the system each skin has a set value. If you want all 30 skins, you buy the license 30 times. So nobody could rightfully complain about getting rid of the RNG type system since no value would technically be lost if someone now has the ability to selectively choose what skin they want out of the system due to the fact that people who spent more than they planned still have skins that have the same price attached to them as all the other skins (Unlike CS:GO, H1Z1, and numerous other games that have actual gambling style lockboxes that can have duplicate drops)

  • First off -- I love the idea of mount skins:

    • It promotes ways to customize a player mount like outfits do for the player character
    • It enables a way for Anet to get funding for the game we love via gem sales

    From what MO posted, I see that the 30 mount license was kind of a new thing for Anet to try and that they are no longer going to pursue that model -- What I do not understand is how an individual mount costs 2000 gems. Anet -- can you help me understand what went into the 2000 gem price? Does it really take 2000 gems worth of work while outfits only take 700(ish) gems?

    The price is super steep relative to items that I would identify as being in the same boat, but only costing 700 - 800 gems (outfits).

    P.S. The Reforged Warhound is cool AF!!!!! But why 2000 gems?!?!?

  • "At significantly lower cost"

    I'm sorry, but what price are you planning on selling a couple extra spikes or extra dye channels for? 400 gems sounds about right.

  • GreyWolf.8670GreyWolf.8670 Member ✭✭✭

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    .> @GreyWolf.8670 said:

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    .

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

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

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

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

    So it's ok to call it a scam based on something you have absolutely no evidence of? Seems reasonable.

    If you want to counter what I suggested the burden is on you to show that it is fair, which you also cannot do.

  • Shikigami.4013Shikigami.4013 Member ✭✭✭
    edited November 11, 2017

    @Witch of Doom.5739 said:
    I meant nothing is changing in the present set; i.e. no individual skins for sale from the current batch of thirty, already bought skins that are unwanted or unuseable will not be sell-able on the Trading Post. That's what I wanted most, so yes, I am disappointed. I don't know -- none of us do -- if by future individual sales he means they'll be 2000 gems each or not. I did buy the Halloween Spooky pack and like it, but if future bundles don't contain ALL skins that I like, I won't buy those. Does that satisfy you?

    Was that a rhetorical question? I am not sure what you would need to post to "satisfy" me. All I said is that they listened to the community feedback and won't do it again, which is good. Changing the mechanics of the current skin sale is obviously a no-go because this would cause another huge ruckus from those people who already gave in and bought the skins although they disliked the system, despite having chosen to do so themselves. It would basically be "kitten 2.0" and cause Arenanet a ton of work with a massive amount of support tickets when they offer choosable skins for a higher price while offering to reimburse people who already bought skins. It would also be very unfair because only those who got undesired skins would have them exchanged, while people who by luck got skins they wanted would keep them and have an advantage. For example there was a stream on twitch by Aurora_Peachy where she freaked out over ONE SPECIFIC skin which she totally liked, bought ONE LICENSE and then by chance got exactly that skin.

    YouTube “L2villagejester”.
    People using belittling wording like whining/qqing" are not taken seriously by me
    Same for people posting only to tell others not to post (“deal with it”-posts)

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @atomy.3817 said:
    They couldn't really change the loot ticket system for the current set of 30 skins, it wouldn't be fair to the people who already got the skins they wanted (aside from doing a full cash refund to everyone who bought gems to use on skins, which would probably be infeasable). It's a bit of a disappointment but at least they aren't continuing the system in the future.

    Notice, that Mo didn't actually say they are abandoning that system. He only said that the next already planned releases will not be rng-pack-like. What happens after then? Who knows?

    So if something like this happens again we know how to act, don't we? But until this happens, if ever, there is no reason to be overdramatic as our concerns has been adressed.

  • @Astralporing.1957 said:
    Notice, that Mo didn't actually say they are abandoning that system. He only said that the next already planned releases will not be rng-pack-like. What happens after then? Who knows?

    I'm sure it wont be the last we hear of RNG on Gem Store. It has always been there. We had different kinds of RNG lootboxes throughout the years. Not to mention the Black Lion Chest having special account bound skins that change every x amount of time. Somehow just because it includes mounts now it became a more touchy subject.

  • Rashagar.8349Rashagar.8349 Member ✭✭✭

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @atomy.3817 said:
    They couldn't really change the loot ticket system for the current set of 30 skins, it wouldn't be fair to the people who already got the skins they wanted (aside from doing a full cash refund to everyone who bought gems to use on skins, which would probably be infeasable). It's a bit of a disappointment but at least they aren't continuing the system in the future.

    Notice, that Mo didn't actually say they are abandoning that system. He only said that the next already planned releases will not be rng-pack-like. What happens after then? Who knows?

    So if something like this happens again we know how to act, don't we? But until this happens, if ever, there is no reason to be overdramatic as our concerns has been adressed.

    With praise and rejoicing that multiple different purchase preferences are still being catered to.

  • @GreyWolf.8670 said:

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    .> @GreyWolf.8670 said:

    @Wolfheart.7483 said:
    .

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

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

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

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

    So it's ok to call it a scam based on something you have absolutely no evidence of? Seems reasonable.

    If you want to counter what I suggested the burden is on you to show that it is fair, which you also cannot do.

    Not true at all. People calling it a scam are the ones making an accusation and the burden of proof lies with them. For everything we know, each skin has an equal chance to drop. So the mount adoption contract that guarantees you unlock a mount skin is giving you exactly what it says.

    Something not being fair is a matter of opinion for something like this. But just because you don't see something as fair does not immediately make it a scam or a cheat.

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @atomy.3817 said:
    They couldn't really change the loot ticket system for the current set of 30 skins, it wouldn't be fair to the people who already got the skins they wanted (aside from doing a full cash refund to everyone who bought gems to use on skins, which would probably be infeasable). It's a bit of a disappointment but at least they aren't continuing the system in the future.

    Notice, that Mo didn't actually say they are abandoning that system. He only said that the next already planned releases will not be rng-pack-like. What happens after then? Who knows?

    So if something like this happens again we know how to act, don't we? But until this happens, if ever, there is no reason to be overdramatic as our concerns has been adressed.

    Yeah, we know how to act. Make a big protest, wait for MO's response, then calm down again. Until it happens again. And again. And again. Except, of course, that accomplishes exactly nothing.

    Seriously, there's nothing in MO's post showing they feel they are at fault or that they intend to change anything in the long run. The only thing they seem to be sorry about is that they've been called on their behaviour.

    So, no, contrary to what you may think, our concerns haven't been addressed in the slightest.

    This is PR edited message that goes not only to players but also to shareholders. They can't just come here and say "yo we f-ed up, take your moeh back". Technically, they did nothing wrong. It's all legal (currently) and RNG nature of mount adoption is very clear. They agreed people don't like and gonna change it for the future.

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.