troops.8276

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? LOLMacDonald'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.

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?The mount adoption license format isn't being changed, it's not being removed, it's not being altered. It just may not reappear.Obviously OP would like to be able to pick the specific skin for a reasonable price. Or at least that's my interpretation.

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.

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. 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) EDIT: numbers are a bit off in placed but not substantially so.

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.

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]NOUNintense 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.

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"

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]NOUNintense 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)

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?What rubbish. Those are totally false equivalencies. And if people stop thinking with their hearts then they could quite easily just walk away from this franchise. If people truly did only spend with pure logical analysis then huge sectors of industry and manufacturing would decline. Do you even realise what you're asking for? And you seem to claim to be some sort of an expert in business. There is all ways a balance between maximum profit and alienating your client base in an open market.

This isn't about needing to have anything. This is about wanting to be able to buy what you want to buy. No one is villifying Anet for wanting earn money. Doesn't mean people will be fine with them doing it with any means necessary. This is just a bad and manipulative business practice and calling them out for bad and manipulative business practice. It's as simple as that. No laws were broken, and I GUARANTEE YOU they are making more money this way. If you actually love this game, you would see that and be happy that this "manipulative" (lol) business practice is keeping the lights on. OK, so you don't get the shiny raptor you want, but maybe now you might get one more expansion before the game shutters. I don't want to go into another ROI business lesson in this thread, so suffice it to say... "making money" doesn't prevent companies from going under. They need to make "enough money" ... when budget time comes around and NCSoft has a few million to invest, it's looking more and more like that's going to be going to their mobile games which make about 400% more ROI than a huge, lunking, aging game like GW2. If I got 2 bucks to invest, why get a $.50 return when i could get a $4.25 return?? "Profitable" can still go under, guys. (p.s. calling someone bad and manipulative is kind of the exact definition of vilifying...)That all most sounds like emotional blackmail.Do you honestly think investing more heavily in the cash shop (by us and Anet) will make a meaningfull dent in the much larger and primarily korean mobile gaming market to make investment in Anet seem more appealing?Can you back up your doom and gloom projection for GW2's financial future?The 3Q financial report doesn't seem to show any signs of Anet going under anytime soon.Do you believe that profit margins in a competitive market and business ethics are mutually exclusive?And why do you take the stance that anyone that doesn't agree with you has no experience in either the corporate world and/or running a successful business when some of us do? (I assume I'm not the only one)

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. What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either. I wouldn't have said it was a scam or cheat either because there isn't anything hidden in the method of sale. The buyer knows what they are getting from the outset. I know my RNG luck is terrible so I'm not going to play the game. Those that do not yet have all the mounts those skins are for will hopefully understand that while a unique skin is guaranteed, a skin might also drop for mount they don't yet possess. Whether or not the sale method benefits the seller or buyer - that is all about perspective. The player that got their favourite skin with the first roll of the dice would be like 'hell yeah, great system!'. For others maybe not so much. Especially if the skin you really wanted didn't pop until the 30th dice roll. @Wolfheart.7483 said: 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. What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either. Not once have I claimed they chose the best approach. This isn't all bad or all good. It is not a scam or cheat. It is represented in the store as exactly what it is. You may not like what it is but if someone buys an adoption contract to unlock a random new mount skin, they know exactly what they are getting: to unlock a random new mount skin. I agree with the fact that it should not be RNG and skins should be sold individually. But if you do purchase a random skin unlock with your heart set on a specific skin(s) and do not get what you hoped for, you were not scammed, cheated or tricked. You willingly took a chance and didn't get the outcome you hoped for. @fizzypetal.7936 said: 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. What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either. I wouldn't have said it was a scam or cheat either because there isn't anything hidden in the method of sale. The buyer knows what they are getting from the outset. I know my RNG luck is terrible so I'm not going to play the game. Those that do not yet have all the mounts those skins are for will hopefully understand that while a unique skin is guaranteed, a skin might also drop for mount they don't yet possess. Whether or not the sale method benefits the seller or buyer - that is all about perspective. The player that got their favourite skin with the first roll of the dice would be like 'hell yeah, great system!'. For others maybe not so much. Especially if the skin you really wanted didn't pop until the 30th dice roll. @Wolfheart.7483 said: 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. What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either. Not once have I claimed they chose the best approach. This isn't all bad or all good. It is not a scam or cheat. It is represented in the store as exactly what it is. You may not like what it is but if someone buys an adoption contract to unlock a random new mount skin, they know exactly what they are getting: to unlock a random new mount skin. I agree with the fact that it should not be RNG and skins should be sold individually. But if you do purchase a random skin unlock with your heart set on a specific skin(s) and do not get what you hoped for, you were not scammed, cheated or tricked. You willingly took a chance and didn't get the outcome you hoped for. Why does it need a label? It just is what it is...a bit of a lottery that players can choose to either participate in or not. I choose not. ;)If you say so but that's why a asked you what the correct word was.

So 'unfriendly sales method' then. Honestly I think that is what people should say. I understand though why people will just use a more blunt and direct word to get the point across. Why try and censor them though? 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. What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either. I wouldn't have said it was a scam or cheat either because there isn't anything hidden in the method of sale. The buyer knows what they are getting from the outset. I know my RNG luck is terrible so I'm not going to play the game. Those that do not yet have all the mounts those skins are for will hopefully understand that while a unique skin is guaranteed, a skin might also drop for mount they don't yet possess. Whether or not the sale method benefits the seller or buyer - that is all about perspective. The player that got their favourite skin with the first roll of the dice would be like 'hell yeah, great system!'. For others maybe not so much. Especially if the skin you really wanted didn't pop until the 30th dice roll. @Wolfheart.7483 said: 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. What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either. Not once have I claimed they chose the best approach. This isn't all bad or all good. It is not a scam or cheat. It is represented in the store as exactly what it is. You may not like what it is but if someone buys an adoption contract to unlock a random new mount skin, they know exactly what they are getting: to unlock a random new mount skin. I agree with the fact that it should not be RNG and skins should be sold individually. But if you do purchase a random skin unlock with your heart set on a specific skin(s) and do not get what you hoped for, you were not scammed, cheated or tricked. You willingly took a chance and didn't get the outcome you hoped for. @fizzypetal.7936 said: 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. What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either. I wouldn't have said it was a scam or cheat either because there isn't anything hidden in the method of sale. The buyer knows what they are getting from the outset. I know my RNG luck is terrible so I'm not going to play the game. Those that do not yet have all the mounts those skins are for will hopefully understand that while a unique skin is guaranteed, a skin might also drop for mount they don't yet possess. Whether or not the sale method benefits the seller or buyer - that is all about perspective. The player that got their favourite skin with the first roll of the dice would be like 'hell yeah, great system!'. For others maybe not so much. Especially if the skin you really wanted didn't pop until the 30th dice roll. @Wolfheart.7483 said: 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. What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either. Not once have I claimed they chose the best approach. This isn't all bad or all good. It is not a scam or cheat. It is represented in the store as exactly what it is. You may not like what it is but if someone buys an adoption contract to unlock a random new mount skin, they know exactly what they are getting: to unlock a random new mount skin. I agree with the fact that it should not be RNG and skins should be sold individually. But if you do purchase a random skin unlock with your heart set on a specific skin(s) and do not get what you hoped for, you were not scammed, cheated or tricked. You willingly took a chance and didn't get the outcome you hoped for. Why does it need a label? It just is what it is...a bit of a lottery that players can choose to either participate in or not. I choose not. ;)

Yes profits are the most important thing, nothing else matters. How they are made is irrelevant. Companies are never sold and everyone laid off for profits. Never has there ever been any disasters after a company cut corners to increase the bottom line. But so you know I'm not putting Anet in that category btw. There not Exxon nor even Bet123.

So still no better descriptor for it. I don't have one either by the way. "A bit of a scam" maybe? Nah. Unfavourable sales method? That fits better but it doesn't roll off the tongue. 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. What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either. I wouldn't have said it was a scam or cheat either because there isn't anything hidden in the method of sale. The buyer knows what they are getting from the outset. I know my RNG luck is terrible so I'm not going to play the game. Those that do not yet have all the mounts those skins are for will hopefully understand that while a unique skin is guaranteed, a skin might also drop for mount they don't yet possess. Whether or not the sale method benefits the seller or buyer - that is all about perspective. The player that got their favourite skin with the first roll of the dice would be like 'hell yeah, great system!'. For others maybe not so much. Especially if the skin you really wanted didn't pop until the 30th dice roll. @Wolfheart.7483 said: 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. What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either. Not once have I claimed they chose the best approach. This isn't all bad or all good. It is not a scam or cheat. It is represented in the store as exactly what it is. You may not like what it is but if someone buys an adoption contract to unlock a random new mount skin, they know exactly what they are getting: to unlock a random new mount skin. I agree with the fact that it should not be RNG and skins should be sold individually. But if you do purchase a random skin unlock with your heart set on a specific skin(s) and do not get what you hoped for, you were not scammed, cheated or tricked. You willingly took a chance and didn't get the outcome you hoped for.

Well if you want to look at the player base as a singular homogenous entity then if blue is happy and red is angry then I'd say it's probably somewhat purple at the moment. But that's pure guess work.

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. What is a better descriptor for it? Do you think it entirely fair from a consumer point of view? Buy them all even though most are fluff and/or unusable or gamble on getting one you like which will statistically cost the consumer more. It is clearly designed to try and drive up sales and some would say also brings in the nastier elements of gambling. Maybe a Clever Sales technique? Does it though benefit seller and buyer equally? Scam probably is to strong a word. But that's not to say it's that far from the truth either.

There are different issues.One is about where the game is continuing to go with this business model in some regard. Do you want to be faced with a long grind or pay real money every time you want to customize your character. The end game is very much about customisation hence the aptly named Fashion Wars.For others it's about the gaming industry as a whole and the introduction of elements that are like gambling amongst other things.Some would say it just feels to much like ripping off the consumer base.A few suggest that the devs should be putting more resources into balance patches and actually supporting the advertised game modes like pvp rather than just making more skins to sell.Others still because they see Anet as somehow a 'friend' and a bastion of good ethics.Others seek to defend Anet in various ways.Some by inferring that not buying things is being a free loader and thus shaming people into spending money despite all ready having bought the expansion.And some just need the salt for their popcorn.This is not an exhaustive list, just my take on some of the elements. And all though the forums do not speak for everyone that does not automatically prove that an complaints are minority problems. A large amount my never voice their opinions here but that does not mean they support the contrary view.

Nothing is for free. Mmo's need a population so they don't feel empty. So even f2p players are contributing to the business model. The base game wasn't free at release. The two expansions were not free. Even Living Worlds have to be bought for some people depending on circumstances. PvP and WvW feel like unsupported game modes with little content or resources brought to them despite featuring prominently on the gw2 webpage. Power creep encourages buying an expansion to keep up in all the game modes. There is grind. There are payed for shortcuts. All of this is part of the discussion because of context. But to say these things cant mentioned is to unfairly force the discussion into a vacuum with no past or future consequences, it's censorship. To say anything is free is not true at all. And a sedentary lifestyle is proven unhealthy. Escapism is not healthy if done to excess. Endless grinding promote both those things.

I think it's that for some people mmo's are more than just a game to them and the companies that make them are more than just a company. That is unhealthy in itself but that's their choice as an individual. It does mean though that they will have disproportionately emotional responses to all sorts of perceived slights. Like me saying their lifestyle is unhealthy.

Christmas is coming and there's another Living World to release so we should expect another marketing ploy of some sorts to create another sales spike in cash to gems. Is that not the business model?

Companies need time to process such massive feedback and prepare the response. Still, I hope for official statement before weekend. No they don't. For example, if some deeply offensive image was on a skin by mistake and there was an uproar about it they would act far more hastily and issue an apology almost instantly.The price of gems spiked immediately when they released the mount skins, it has not yet gone back to the level it was before. This may well be a factor in when and if they choose to make a statement on the current situation.

They are letting players buy them outright if you buy the bundle. It's not cheap, but it's there. And you could win the lottery if you just buy a ticket for every possible combination of numbers. this. everyone arguing "it's not gambling because you can buy them all" is wasting time on pointless semantics. except for a tiny portion of dedicated collectors and/or whales, most people only want a handful of these 30 skins, not every last one. every skin they pay for but don't want is a lost dice roll. just because there's a fixed total number of possible times to lose doesn't mean it isn't gambling. Call it gambling if you want, but this is nothing different than getting a random drop.In a way. Most good random drops come at the end of some sort of content though. A dungeon, a raid, a chain of quests or a world event. Low probability of getting what you want in those instances is to slow down or time gate rewards and content to encourage more play time and thus used to manipulate people in sub based profit models for the most part or to make buying the item with real money more desirable. The beauty of making items exclusive to the cash shop is you don't need to bother making the content to play through in the first place.

They are letting players buy them outright if you buy the bundle. It's not cheap, but it's there.Oh they're letting them, how terribly nice of them.

They are in the game. You can convert gold to gem. I farmed this one randomly dropped mount from an old dungeon in WoW so many times. I made a lot of gold wishing that there's a way to use the gold to just buy the mount instead of wasting my time resetting and running the same dungeon over and over. Is that what you like to do, to run the same content hoping for a random drop? Then GW2 has it. To me, there's not difference. The more people do that the worse the exchange rate will become thus effectively increasing the grinding time which in turn makes paying with real money more enticing. They thought this through you know. Nah, I doubt it. It might spike the exchange rate sure, but you can't ignore those who exchange gems for gold.Yes indeed. Getting real money in is what it's all about. It's a mechanism to ensure that buying gems directly is all ways enticing and that enough people will do it. But it all ways remains that you must grind or pay. It's a very clever business model.

They are in the game. You can convert gold to gem. I farmed this one randomly dropped mount from an old dungeon in WoW so many times. I made a lot of gold wishing that there's a way to use the gold to just buy the mount instead of wasting my time resetting and running the same dungeon over and over. Is that what you like to do, to run the same content hoping for a random drop? Then GW2 has it. To me, there's not difference. The more people do that the worse the exchange rate will become thus effectively increasing the grinding time which in turn makes paying with real money more enticing. They thought this through you know.