Moira Shalaar.5620
-
Posts
391 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Moira Shalaar.5620
-
-
This is another epic marketing fail already almost to the level of the HoT launch fail. I was relieved and happy at the launch of PoF that they seemed to have learned from past mistakes and the launch went smoothly, people were mostly happy (there are always a few outliers) and now this. All they needed to have done, one tiny marketing step that could have prevented this whole thing and pleased possibly every single person posting both for and against, is to have made the individual skins available at 600-700 gems a piece. If you want a specific one, buy it! Or, if you want a chance at getting it at a discount, pay less for a randomized chance 1/30 at getting iterations other skins. Want the super-duper extra special mount skin? Here is our premium one for 2k (too much I believe, but just presenting how they bungled this opportunity). They could have pulled in their whales with the discounted packs, as well as casuals with the opportunity to pick specific individual skins.
Whoever is in charge of marketing learned a hard lesson from HoT, now they have to learn another lesson. The problem is that even if they fall back to that position now, now they are reacting, and it will be rightly seen as damage control. Good will has been lost, possibly on the scale of the HoT debacle, instead of simple excitement on the part of gamers happy to throw more money at them. However, the worst possibly is that they will ignore this, make NO change, and hope it all blows over.
Someone from Anet WILL be tasked with reading through all these pages, maybe more than one given the magnitude of the pushback. Whoever you are, please encourage that marketing person to learn from this and to consider possible reactions to their marketing decisions BEFOREHAND so we don’t keep ending up with epic marketing failures that only end up hurting the game and reducing your bottom line.
*edited because of accidental posting before complete
-
Actually, as I think about this I think I am thankful for this. It was the push I needed. I just took my entertainment budget for the month and bought a book. No threat of what I am going to do, what I might do if they don't change, it is what I have already done. For the last 6 months I have been spending my budget on gems. I think that time has come to a full stop.
-
Like so may here I will not be spending money on this kitten-fest. Others have called it already, this is simply gambling and the house always wins. ANET might come ahead doing this, but only at the expense of fleecing their customers. I will not partake in this. Not with a single bit of RL currency, and not with a bit of in game currency. I have no problem with them making a profit, I dislike some of their pricing but have purchased anyway because I have enjoyed the game, but their trend towards RNG for more and more of the game is really concerning.
-
So I have found a solution for the cursor size, at least for Mac OS users, may be useful for windows, idk. If you go into System Preferences --> Accessibility you can increase the cursor size. This will increase it in both the normal usage and in game, but at least I can find it now in game!
-
@Sultane.9150 said:I agree with the post above. Very annoying atm. Currently keeps launching with the option checked and I need to uncheck it because everything just looks so bad and blurry.
Try making a change to some other graphics setting after unchecking the box, then log out and restart the game, and it should stay unchecked even after reverting whatever second setting you changed back to where you had it originally.
-
What is up with the mouse cursor?? It has never been that easy to see, but since this update the cursor is a fraction of the size it used to be and is almost impossible to see. This is probably one of many unintended consequences of making such a drastic change, but now is a serious QoL loss. Please make whatever change needed to restore the cursor back to a visible size please.
-
I had this happen to me Wednesday in Crystal Oasis. I was leading a squad for one legendary bounty and suddenly we were merged with another squad for another bounty. I did not instigate it, nor was I given any sort of prompt to confirm. Same for the other commander, we were suddenly just merged. It caused a bit of confusion and some folks thought one group was trolling another. We ended up just leaving them merged and breaking into separate sub-squads. We were fortunate that we were not doing instance content, this would have been really frustrating otherwise.
Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]
in Guild Wars 2 Discussion
Posted
I have no issue with the gem store as a whole. ANET has to make their profit one way or another. That means SOMEBODY is paying their salaries. As far as I am aware there are essentially three models: 1. 100% upfront where the players spend to buy content as it is released, usually in expansions or paid DLC or some combination of the two; 2. monthly subscription; or 3. cash store. ANET has blended options 1 & 3. If we take out #3 altogether then either we would be paying much more for the releases we get, or we would move to a subscription model. The cash store allows players to choose when and how much they want to sink into the game, which I think is honestly a great way to do things and I have been fairly consistently been buying gems for those things I thought were worth the money.
However I do agree with you in part that the players who have already purchased these mount contracts are providing ANET tangible positive feedback that this decision was not problematic for all, only for a significant some of the player base. In part, we (as a whole) are indeed to blame for buying into it.
I don't regret that I have bought gem cards, but I also won't be doing so again any time soon, and neither will any of the others in my family. That is us voting with my wallet. I see this as a predatory practice. Clearly while many in this thread agree with me, others who have posted do not all see it that way. I would like to think that those who made this decision at ANET did so with a clear conscience, without the avaricious intent some attribute to them. However ANET needs to recognize that even if they do not share the same ethics as some of their players, they are going to have to account for the fact that not only is there a differing opinion, but account for the fact that we feel passionately about it.