Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]


Recommended Posts

@Kalibri.5861 said:What is all this, "they can't fix it now" nonsense? They can do a lot. They can reset items, they can refund gems, they can pull the adoption system, they can add individual skins to the gem shop. They just don't want to. Don't apologise for them.

I am not per say apologizing for them. The whole ordeal just drained me to the point I needed to take a break(Only got talking on the forums because of his reply), and I am still in fact on a break from the actual game due to the whole RNG business. I am happy for this small victory. Is it the victory I wanted where they change the adoption system? Far from it. At least for the next batch, it will not be RNG related which is all that I can hope for because I don't think they will change the current lootbox system at this point. Take your victories where you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kelian Ravenwood.4130 said:

@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).

That isn't comparable. With McDonalds Lottery you get exactly what you pay for, there is no mystery as to what you are going to get.

What would be comparable to what Anet did is if McDonalds sold a "sandwich gamble box". You pay $2.50 and get one sandwich. It could be a Quarter Pounder with Cheese, a Filet o Fish, a Bacon Cheeseburger, a regular Hamburger, a Chicken Sandwich, etc. Of course each of these sandwiches is actually worth different amounts of money - some quite a bit less than $2.50, some quite a bit more. Some sandwiches you won't like, and some you would particularly want. But you don't get a choice. McDonalds only sells it's sandwiches this way.

How long do you think McDonalds would last if they did this btw? LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Djinn.9245 said:

@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).

That isn't comparable. With McDonalds Lottery you get exactly what you pay for, there is no mystery as to what you are going to get.

What would be comparable to what Anet did is if McDonalds sold a "sandwich gamble box". You pay $2.50 and get one sandwich. It could be a Quarter Pounder with Cheese, a Filet o Fish, a Bacon Cheeseburger, a regular Hamburger, a Chicken Sandwich, etc. Of course each of these sandwiches is actually worth different amounts of money - some quite a bit less than $2.50, some quite a bit more. Some sandwiches you won't like, and some you would particularly want. But you don't get a choice. McDonalds only sells it's sandwiches this way.

How long do you think McDonalds would last if they did this btw? LOL

MacDonald's is all ways a bit of a gamble though. Can never tell what's been going on in the back there.But don't forget the sparkly super burger for $25 too! Or the value pack of every burger at once for only $120 bucks! The savings are huge and it comes with a free ride in an ambulance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@troops.8276 said:

@Djinn.9245 said:

@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).

That isn't comparable. With McDonalds Lottery you get exactly what you pay for, there is no mystery as to what you are going to get.

What would be comparable to what Anet did is if McDonalds sold a "sandwich gamble box". You pay $2.50 and get one sandwich. It could be a Quarter Pounder with Cheese, a Filet o Fish, a Bacon Cheeseburger, a regular Hamburger, a Chicken Sandwich, etc. Of course each of these sandwiches is actually worth different amounts of money - some quite a bit less than $2.50, some quite a bit more. Some sandwiches you won't like, and some you would particularly want. But you don't get a choice. McDonalds only sells it's sandwiches this way.

How long do you think McDonalds would last if they did this btw? LOL

MacDonald's is all ways a bit of a gamble though. Can never tell what's been going on in the back there.But don't forget the sparkly super burger for $25 too! Or the value pack of every burger at once for only $120 bucks! The savings are huge and it comes with a free ride in an ambulance.

McDonald's Monopoly is also a sweepstakes and governed by laws. If you ask them for a piece they have to give you one for free. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a few important things to mention after I went through some of the posts in this thread.

1. Mount skins can be treated as rewards for playing the game.

You don't have to spend $$$ to buy mount skins. We have to remember that gold to gems is a thing! 400gems is roughly around 90~110g (wait till prices drop). And you can easily get that much in 3-4 days if you follow some guides. These days it's much easier to get gold than karma or laurels or guild commendations (though guild mounts could be a thing) or even completing a collection. It is more convenient for a player to get 100g than to farm 200k karma etc.

2. MO did not make an empty post.

How many people read it to the end? Where he points out that yes they will not change the mount licenses but listening to the feedback they will focus on releasing standalone mount skins and thematic skin packs like Halloween skins and possibly Wintersday or SAB skins.

3. Putting the game and the devs in the bad light because of the minor gemstore release.

I am really disgusted* by the websites and youtubers which have not covered HoT release, PoF release nor any LS release or have not done any GW2 coverage since the game release in 2012. But they are covering such a minor thing like mount license RNG aspect. Only because adding more fuel to that fire might bring them some subscribers. I wonder how many people who watched the video or read an article checked for other GW2 related things on the website/channel. I did. How can you trust the opinion of a person who hasn't played the game for years or not played it at all!?

4. Demands are not feedback.

I feel like because devs communicate so activeley with the playerbase both on forums and on reddit, players believe they can force devs into making changes. Either you change it or we gonna put you in the bad light. This happens every time: HoT release, raid release, when legendary weapons went on hiatus, legendary armor release and on and on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Assic.2746 said:I have a few important things to mention after I went through some of the posts in this thread.

1. Mount skins can be treated as rewards for playing the game.

You don't have to spend $$$ to buy mount skins. We have to remember that gold to gems is a thing! 400gems is roughly around 90~110g (wait till prices drop). And you can easily get that much in 3-4 days if you follow some guides. These days it's much easier to get gold than karma or laurels or guild commendations (though guild mounts could be a thing) or even completing a collection. It is more convenient for a player to get 100g than to farm 200k karma etc.

2. MO did not make an empty post.

How many people read it to the end? Where he points out that yes they will not change the mount licenses but listening to the feedback they will focus on releasing standalone mount skins and thematic skin packs like Halloween skins and possibly Wintersday or SAB skins.

3. Putting the game and the devs in the bad light because of the minor gemstore release.

I am really disguised by the websites and youtubers which have not covered HoT release, PoF release nor any LS release or have not done any GW2 coverage since the game release in 2012. But they are covering such a minor thing like mount license RNG aspect. Only because adding more fuel to that fire might bring them some subscribers. I wonder how many people who watched the video or read an article checked for other GW2 related things on the website/channel. I did. How can you trust the opinion of a person who hasn't played the game for years or not played it at all!?

4. Demands are not feedback.

I feel like because devs communicate so activeley with the playerbase both on forums and on reddit, players believe they can force devs into making changes. Either you change it or we gonna put you in the bad light. This happens every time: HoT release, raid release, when legendary weapons went on hiatus, legendary armor release and on and on.

For (3) - Besides jumping on the bandwagon to get some views... They're putting exposure on yet another publisher that's going with the sleezy loot boxes. And honestly, the more youtubers and website that do this, the better.

EA with it's loot boxes took a hit.Activision with it's match making patent took a bit of a hit.NCSoft/ANet is taking a hit with this.

You know, maybe the next one that has/had a similarly bright idea like the rest - might clue in and stop, before they too take a hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thread. My thought on the mount adoption licenses are similar to how I feel about the Black Lion Chests. I never purchase "chances" for anything. It always seems to be a "pig-in-a-poke" concept as far as I am concerned. I will not gamble on a chance for anything no matter the enticement. Sorry Anet, but I refuse to step up to that bar even if the ceiling was on fire.

I liked the Halloween skin set so I purchased that because I knew exactly what I was buying. But you can forget it when it comes to rng for skins "sight unseen" type of offer. And I can't imagine wanting 30 of those skins either. I am perfectly happy with what I have and if I see anything in the future offering something I want and don't mind spending my gems for, I'll pick it up. But I am one of those folks who actually can say "nope" to these types of rng enticements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Next time it happens feel free to vote with wallet and havea copy pasta of MO's words on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@PookieDaWombat.6209 said:Not really no. Its one of the biggest and longest running complaints on here I've noticed. They've gotten "better" at putting things in the game that feel rewarding when getting them. For instance, I rather enjoyed getting the griffon as I liked revisiting maps and having to creatively explore them to find and get the things I needed. Perhaps it felt more rewarding doing it all solo, so the fights and such were a bit more meaningful, and being a gw1 player the lore was also a bit of a reward, but they are still lacking overall on in game rewards. Map completion still feels lackluster and some of the weapon collection stuff either feels under tuned or over tuned at times. Also, pretty sure the loot chances for the needed exotics in the unidentified gear is still broken so I'm sitting on tons of unidentified bags until that gets fixed.

I dunno...it seems like they are trying, but still missing the mark somewhat. Can't suggest a way forward on this but I do know they need to make more things available as rewards for doing more on the maps to encourage replayability.

If these boxes had been available as in-game rewards found just by playing (Map completion, meta events, skritt chests, buried treasure, etc), this would have been possibly the greatest addition to the game. Instead, they shat the bed with it by locking it behind the paywall, so players don't get an "Aww! That's cute! I'm gonna use it!" when they get a random mount, and instead feel "I wasted $5+ on THIS garbage?!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Assic.2746 said:1. Mount skins can be treated as rewards for playing the game.You don't have to spend $$$ to buy mount skins. We have to remember that gold to gems is a thing! 400gems is roughly around 90~110g (wait till prices drop). And you can easily get that much in 3-4 days if you follow some guides. These days it's much easier to get gold than karma or laurels or guild commendations (though guild mounts could be a thing) or even completing a collection. It is more convenient for a player to get 100g than to farm 200k karma etc.So you believe that 90~110g is a fair price on a gamble box of 30 different mounts/skins? If you're an individual who only likes a specific mount or a specific skin, you're essentially paying 90~110g with a chance at coming away with absolutely nothing of personal value. Sounds fair.@Assic.2746 said:2. MO did not make an empty post.How many people read it to the end? Where he points out that yes they will not change the mount licenses but listening to the feedback they will focus on releasing standalone mount skins and thematic skin packs like Halloween skins and possibly Wintersday or SAB skins.Time will tell.@Assic.2746 said:3. Putting the game and the devs in the bad light because of the minor gemstore release.I am really disguised by the websites and youtubers which have not covered HoT release, PoF release nor any LS release or have not done any GW2 coverage since the game release in 2012. But they are covering such a minor thing like mount license RNG aspect. Only because adding more fuel to that fire might bring them some subscribers. I wonder how many people who watched the video or read an article checked for other GW2 related things on the website/channel. I did. How can you trust the opinion of a person who hasn't played the game for years or not played it at all!?You're disgusted? I assume that is what you mean. These websites and youtubers commented on what happened, none that i have seen have misconstrued what ANet did, yet you feel so strongly against THESE people? really? After games such Shadows of War using these types of gamble box tactics, you think they would have pumped the breaks, made it a little kinder, but they didn't. Nothing these people are reacting against is factually wrong, you just don't like the backlash to a game you like.@Assic.2746 said:4. Demands are not feedback.I feel like because devs communicate so activeley with the playerbase both on forums and on reddit, players believe they can force devs into making changes. Either you change it or we gonna put you in the bad light. This happens every time: HoT release, raid release, when legendary weapons went on hiatus, legendary armor release and on and on.Actively communicating and understanding are two entirely different things. The way this was handled could only have gone one way, bad. And again, nothing what these people are saying are wrong. This was handled bad and people in the gaming community said no.

P.S, I adore this game, I've spent quite a lot of money on it. I do not regret that, but i wont blame websites and youtubers for pointing out how badly this was handled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ashen.2907 said:

@Jaskar.3071 said:

@rcs.4120 said:

200gems for random chance300 gems for random chance of a specific type,400 gems for specific skin800 gems for fancy pants skin that is presently 2000gems."

I like this idea

I like the concept of the idea, but the gem costs are too low IMO.25050010002000

Complete gemstore outfits that you can wear anywhere are only 700 gems. Why would a skin for a mount that you can't use in 5 out of 7 game modes be more? In case your curious what game modes I'm talking about, (Raids, fractals, dungeons, pvp.) Edit: Forgot about story instances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This game is going to continue to go down the drain until the developers actually look at what gamers expect.

It sucks that the community's been conditioned to accept "No in-game mount skins", when this is the ONLY MMO on the market that has such an oppressive cash shop. Yes, I've played those that are "Pay To Win" - and even they manage to provide more on the in-game cosmetics front.

Having all but the most basic skins locked behind the gem store flashes this game's asshole at the rest of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cloud.7613 said:So you believe that 90~110g is a fair price on a gamble box of 30 different mounts/skins? If you're an individual who only likes a specific mount or a specific skin, you're >essentially paying 90~110g with a chance at coming away with absolutely nothing of personal value. Sounds fair.

I personally like a handful of the skins, and I got one of that handful with one of the two licenses I purchased. The second license gave me a griffon skin I wasn't particularly fond of, but I've been using it anyway because it has four dye channels. I do feel like 400 gems is a bit costly for a 1 in 30 chance, but never receiving duplicates is quite a bit nicer than most loot box systems. I can convert some gold every now and then, and get a new skin every time I buy a license. For now though, I'm shifting my focus away from Fashion Wars, and more toward account/character upgrades.

Especially mind boggling though, are the people who complain about getting a griffon skin, and then say that they never intend to get the griffon. Unless you have a phobia of griffons, I don't see any reason to abstain from getting it. I assume that for most people, it's the gold cost, as the rest of the collection is pretty tame. I strongly urge those people to convert those gems that would have been spent on mount skin gambling, and put the resulting gold toward unlocking that griffon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Assic.2746 said:I have a few important things to mention after I went through some of the posts in this thread.

1. Mount skins can be treated as rewards for playing the game.

You don't have to spend $$$ to buy mount skins. We have to remember that gold to gems is a thing! 400gems is roughly around 90~110g (wait till prices drop). And you can easily get that much in 3-4 days if you follow some guides. These days it's much easier to get gold than karma or laurels or guild commendations (though guild mounts could be a thing) or even completing a collection. It is more convenient for a player to get 100g than to farm 200k karma etc.

Gold to Gems is only a thing because Gems to Gold is a thing. And it absolutely murders the game's reward structure. Being able to get Gem Store cosmetics from playing the game should be a 'nice thing' the game offers. NOT the be-all-and-end-all of the game's endgame.

2. MO did not make an empty post.1>How many people read it to the end? Where he points out that yes they will not change the mount licenses but listening to the feedback they will focus on releasing standalone mount skins and thematic skin packs like Halloween skins and possibly Wintersday or SAB skins.

In short "They will do nothing, but double down on the bullshit"

3. Putting the game and the devs in the bad light because of the minor gemstore release.

I am really disguised by the websites and youtubers which have not covered HoT release, PoF release nor any LS release or have not done any GW2 coverage since the game release in 2012. But they are covering such a minor thing like mount license RNG aspect. Only because adding more fuel to that fire might bring them some subscribers. I wonder how many people who watched the video or read an article checked for other GW2 related things on the website/channel. I did. How can you trust the opinion of a person who hasn't played the game for years or not played it at all!?

"The game has no mount skins in-game, but dozens in the cancerous gem store" isn't a "Minor thing" - it's a clear signal to the MMO gaming community that this dumpster fire of a controversy is based around a dumpster fire of a game. Guild Wars 2 had what many considered the best implementation of mounts, but because Anet has its head stuck in an echo chamber of players used to having no cosmetic options outside the game's gem store, it set that system on fire when they could have unlocked its potential.

4. Demands are not feedback.

I feel like because devs communicate so activeley with the playerbase both on forums and on reddit, players believe they can force devs into making changes. Either you change it or we gonna put you in the bad light. This happens every time: HoT release, raid release, when legendary weapons went on hiatus, legendary armor release and on and on.

The player base doesn't put the game in a bad light - the developers not paying attention to the market and public opinion does.The players CAN'T put the game in a bad light as long as they're not lying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be carefull, I'm pretty sure that's the rng is calculated in fact.

I bought 1 to test, even if I was not waiting for a nice griffon skin.

But I just got the ugliest of all mount skin, the Desert Lop (yes you can check it). I just can't believe that about all the 30 mounts skins, I got what i find the ugliest of all!

Few days later, in channel, someone was complaining that he bought 3 skins and got 3 skimmers skins, the mount the more useless of all. And he was right in fact.

Later, I tried for the second time to buy a mount and got ... a skimmer. And not a good skin, the most basic : the spined longtail.

So strange so strange.

But it's simply obvious, why people whould continue to spend gems if they get the celestial griffon in the first time hey ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Quarktastic.1027 said:I personally like a handful of the skins, and I got one of that handful with one of the two licenses I purchased. The second license gave me a griffon skin I wasn't particularly fond of, but I've been using it anyway because it has four dye channels. I do feel like 400 gems is a bit costly for a 1 in 30 chance, but never receiving duplicates is quite a bit nicer than most loot box systems. I can convert some gold every now and then, and get a new skin every time I buy a license. For now though, I'm shifting my focus away from Fashion Wars, and more toward account/character upgrades.That seems smart, i like 3 skins. The odds of me getting those in quick succession is bad, if there was a way i could increase the odds, but still be subject to RNG i would accept that and sliver back into the hole i came out of, the issue arises for me, when the mounts were bundled so large.

@Quarktastic.1027 said:Especially mind boggling though, are the people who complain about getting a griffon skin, and then say that they never intend to get the griffon. Unless you have a phobia of griffons, I don't see any reason to abstain from getting it. I assume that for most people, it's the gold cost, as the rest of the collection is pretty tame. I strongly urge those people to convert those gems that would have been spent on mount skin gambling, and put the resulting gold toward unlocking that griffon.You don't see a reason not to get it? 250 gold is an acceptable reason to me. I almost never use my griffon, i could have spent that 250 gold on something else quite easily. Regardless, 6 skins that you cannot or may not use is another reason why this was handled badly and should have been split by mount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a couple of mounts in the 'mount adoption' group of... mounts you didn't apparently think were valuable individually... that I might be interested in.

You won't be getting my money/gems for them. I would be interested in Mount X or Y and get mount Z1, Z2, Z3... The price to get the mount you might want goes up every time you get one you don't.

I don't want Unique mounts that don't appeal to me. This gambling randomness will close my wallet all together.

Please just make a good product and sell it at a fair price. Please leave this kind of trickery to the casinos.

A big problem for me is that with the 400g price per random, you're matching the price per mount from the Spooky pack. Not including the sale gives you 2000g/5mounts or 400g/mount. I choose the spooky mounts, I can't choose the rando mounts.

When you try to raise the price per mount over the price you put on the random mounts, then the average price per mount is going above that set by your spooky pack (non-sale price). Unless we never see the Spooky pack except when it's on sale in October. In which case they are actually 1600/5 mounts and 320g per mount. Which means you're charging 80g more for random and consumer expectation is that you will charge more than the random price for the individuals.

Please Anet. Just make a good product and sell it at a fair price. We will buy more of it and be happy to boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally would much rather have a subscription fee with no micro-transactions at all.

I read the official response. It just showed that they had no idea this was going to finally cause players to start to wake up to the type of marketing manipulation going on, and they needed to do damage control. Sadly, most will become complacent again after the statement was posted, whether anything changes or not.

The problem still remains that a major game mechanic (yes, mounts and fashion wars 2 makes it a major game mechanic) is not customizable with any non-gemstore means, and the majority of even those are behind rng walls and expansion price (not-micro) transactions.

I personally would still like to hear a second statement, once more time is taken to decide their direction with the gemstore and game in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MachineManXX.9746 said:

@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?

I was saying that i think 400 gems for a single mount is a fair price, but we do not have the option of paying for a single mount of our choice, only a random one, which I find unreasonable. And yes, I think that a $120 price point for a package of pure cosmetics of one category alone is ridiculous when the game and expansions themselves - content - barely exceed that value for those who are long-time players and buyers (~$150), or only make up about half of that amount for newer players.

And to clarify, I'm not mad. I was merely voicing my opinion for others to read, and explaining why I don't plan to make the purchase they've offered, in the hopes that maybe if others feel similarly, they'll see that, and possibly change something. That's all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As my understanding goes the current RNG Mount gambling can not be converted to choice because of customers that already purchased scratch off tickets, what if you have all these people reset options like you would when peoples traits get reset after extensive changes, then these customers would get the same choice options we would have?

Here's another concern that probably effects only a dozen people, what happens to people that bought multiple 30 packs in anticipation of more mounts Boeing added to the adoption pool?

While I'm not happy with your RNG I till respect the parts of the Gem Store that are not and still plan on spending money when I have choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Penarddun.6827 said:I personally would much rather have a subscription fee with no micro-transactions at all.

I read the official response. It just showed that they had no idea this was going to finally cause players to start to wake up to the type of marketing manipulation going on, and they needed to do damage control. Sadly, most will become complacent again after the statement was posted, whether anything changes or not.

The problem still remains that a major game mechanic (yes, mounts and fashion wars 2 makes it a major game mechanic) is not customizable with any non-gemstore means, and the majority of even those are behind rng walls and expansion price (not-micro) transactions.

I personally would still like to hear a second statement, once more time is taken to decide their direction with the gemstore and game in general.

Ugh, no thank you. I'm in this game because of the no sub fee. It's not that I can't afford it, but I don't like the feeling that I NEED to play in order to be getting my money's worth. There are PLENTY of sub games you can play out there. There aren't nearly as many games with no sub fee that are also not buy to win.

@LED.4739 said:

I was saying that i think 400 gems for a single mount is a fair price, but we do not have the option of paying for a single mount of our choice, only a random one, which I find unreasonable. And yes, I think that a $120 price point for a package of pure cosmetics of one category alone is ridiculous when the game and expansions themselves - content - barely exceed that value for those who are long-time players and buyers (~$150), or only make up about half of that amount for newer players.

And to clarify, I'm not mad. I was merely voicing my opinion for others to read, and explaining why I don't plan to make the purchase they've offered, in the hopes that maybe if others feel similarly, they'll see that, and possibly change something. That's all400 gems for a single mount is cheap. Too many people saying this would be a fair price. Glider skins, which I'd say are not nearly as involved and don't offer nearly as many dye options are in the range of 400-700 gems. I'd say Mount skins could fairly be priced slightly higher than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk about being logical?

What is so illogical to want a fair deal?What is so illogical to want to be treated like decent human beings instead of Pavlovian test subjects?What is so illogical to want companies to stop using dirty tactics to scam customers?

What is logical about a deal that is so lopsided in favor of one party?What is logical about paying money and still not get what you want after many tries?What is logical about a gambling system where the house has nothing to lose?

LMAO They won't change the system because they feel the people whom have already been cheated shouldn't feel more cheated by the removal of the system that cheated them? So keeping the same cheating system up means the system will continue to cheat more future potential buyers. Nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with inubasiri. If you have extra 30 packs (or extra individual licences) which cannot be used you should contact Support.

It might take a few days to get a response because it will be considered low priority compared to things like people getting locked out of their account, but they should be able to refund the gems you spent on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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