LanfearShadowflame.3189

I'm getting similar things. Been going back and forth with support since Monday. They seem to want to blame it on Windows 11, but everything has been fine until this last patch. I have checked every driver, verified everything is up to date. I'm still using the same graphics driver that I was before the crashing started (even did a clean install of it). I've done a number of -repair runs, I've gone so far as to complete remove and reinstall the game at this point. Still crashing. Game only runs about 5 minutes before it crashes at this point. Additional notes - I don't have any of the adds on - Arc, Blish, Taco, LaunchBuddy, none of that is installed. My GW2 also lives in its own folder outside of my program files.

I have a similar issue. Have had since Monday. Same assortment of errors. I'm on Windows 11, and support keeps trying to blame it on Win11, but yours is Win10 system with similar symptoms. Same graphics driver, different card. Most errors pop as the c0000005 , but there are others interspersed, as you displayed. I'm almost positive its something with Monday's patch at this point, because everything was fine until I patched. And nothing else had changed on my system between when I'd last played on Sunday night, and me patching Monday evening. I've checked every driver, I checked windows updates. I did an update after the crashing started, thinking that might have been it. But nope, no dice. I even did a memory scan to verify the ram wasn't randomly going bad. I've gone so far as to completely remove the game, and download a fresh install. Still crashing. I've been going back and forth with support all week. I've lost count of the number of times someone has told me to run a repair and then try launching again as an admin and let them know if it works. 😑

I am also encountering the issue where the launcher itself is crashing. So I couldn't patch. DX11 not enabled 45 characters Windowed Fullscreen mode Turned off my Discord overlay I don't use Arc or any of the other things Admin event log: Faulting application name: Gw2-64.tmp, version: 1.0.0.1, time stamp: 0x614b47b6 Faulting module name: Gw2-64.tmp, version: 1.0.0.1, time stamp: 0x614b47b6 Exception code: 0xc0000409 Fault offset: 0x00000000002d805d Faulting process id: 0x1c3c Faulting application start time: 0x01d7b01749c92759 Faulting application path: C:\Game Data\Guild Wars 2\Gw2-64.tmp Faulting module path: C:\Game Data\Guild Wars 2\Gw2-64.tmp Report Id: 9c61dc0a-0dee-4c9d-b79c-45e859e8273d Faulting package full name: Faulting package-relative application ID: Noted someone else said turning off their TrendMicro resolved their issue. I also use TrendMicro, and turning off trend did allow the launcher to launch. Adding the tmp file specified in the error log to Trend's whitelist seems to resolve the issue as well. I have never had an issue with Trend interacting with GW2 prior to this beta patch. Might be something for the devs to look into. Hopefully this helps others. 🙂

Wandering in a little late to the thread here, and I'm not sure if anyone else shares my PoV here (as I skipped most of the comments) but I'll toss it out there none the less. For me, there's "too much" text in the clip. I end up watching for the text and miss the vast majority of the game footage. For someone like my husband, who doesn't read quickly, he'd completely miss the background footage that's trying to be presented. I suppose if you're trying to make some people watch it twice, that's great, but I don't think many potential players that are looking for a new game would necessarily.

Yes, each of those is a gamble. Everything is a gamble to some extent, when you use the very general sense of the word. Life itself is a gamble. Just sitting in your chair is a gamble. You run the risk of it breaking and dropping you on the floor, potentially hurting you in the process. Or the ceiling falling on your head. Or even your desk suddenly collapsing into your lap. All of these things are highly unlikely, but the risk exists. No one likes to look at it from that perspective though. While you certainly could say everything in a game, or indeed life, is a gamble, If you apply the word to everything, it completely looses its significance and relevance. Therefore we must only use 'Gambling' as it's intended definition applies. Spending real money, on one of a variety of options, to which the obtained outcome does not envolve the power of choice, and leaves everything to random chance, is a form of gambling. This is akin to placing a $5 bill in a casino slot machine, pressing the button, and watching the meter spin around in circles over 30 possible items before stopping on one. If that is considered gambling in a casino -and make no mistake it is- it is gambling here too. But deffinitions aside, regardless of whether we call this "adoption" gambling or not, is irrelevant. The simple fact of the mater is I dont like it; there is huuuuge risk that ill waste a LOT of money obtaining things i dont want instead of buying something I do. Its not worth the risk, not worth the money, so I wont do it. And im not alone. Period. Simple as that. Yes, it is gambling by the broad definition of the term. The problem with trying to apply it the way you, and others, are trying to apply it implies the "legal" definition of "gamble", which this doesn't meet the requirements for. At least not at this time. If it did, it would require legal oversight, like a casino. And the game would likely require people to be at least 18 to play it at that point. This has a guaranteed reward. You are purchasing an item and exchanging it for another. Yes, there is risk in that you may not get the skin you are after; however, you are guaranteed a skin for every purchase. "Gambling" in the sense people are trying to apply it, has no guarantees which is where it's 'risk' comes in. More often than not you will get nothing, because that is how it is set up to work. Yes, you will eventually get something, but in the long run you typically lose more than you gain. Here you lose nothing, it is an equal trade. You may not like the skin. You may not ever use it. But you never, ever get nothing. You may view it as "getting nothing" because you do not like it, or because you do not use it, but it does remain that you do actually get something (of equal value. this is actually important to note). No, actually, I thought i made myself quite clear, I was not using the legal definition of 'Gambling', but the 'spirit of the word', ie: its 'intended definition.' Again, as I said, the word itself doesnt mater, the point is many of us are unhappy with ANets merchanidzing practices, and as such we request they amend them. Until they do, we will not be spending money on these items, and ANet will lose a large chunck of their possible income. It would therefore be in our best interest as players/consumers, and their's as a business/producer, to choose more consumer friendly, and thus profitable marketing practices. We, or at least I(as it would be foolheardly to claim I speak for all the dissenters) are trying desperately to send this message to the Devs because I love their game, and DO want to spend money on it, DO want to support it, and DO want to aquire some of these items. But the manor in which I support IS important, I would not let my own family starve just to feed a starving child. I care about the future and success of the game, and that is why I post complaints and suggestions: to bring GW2 back to a place where I can happily support them. A deal that is just as lucrative for them as it is for me. It's hard to believe you're using the 'spirit of the word' when you compare it to a slot machine which has no guaranteed return. Regardless, we agree that it fits the broader term, moving on. I understand where you're coming from. You don't agree with the RNG aspect of it, and as such won't buy them. That's fine. Typically that's my advice to most people - don't like it, don't buy it. That's not any different than what I do when I don't agree with something. Vote with your wallet. That said, I don't think it's going away. Which is why I made the suggestions that I did earlier in the thread - 1) give us non-rng cash shop skins that we can straight up buy if we like them (I should probably specify both individual skins as well as bundles, otherwise they'll just stick us with bundles, which not everyone likes), 2) give us non-rng in game skins that we can hunt down and earn, 3) adjust the BLS to allow us to at least limit the RNG by the mount type we want a skin for. I think between the 3 of these, it might assuage most peoples ire. I agree with all of this. Only, voting with your wallet but not your voice isnt enough. Lets say they sell 700 of these skins, there was a total of 3,000 that would have been sold if players could choose which one they wanted rather than have to pay into a RNG system, but because they made it RNG they only sold 700. Thats a loss of 2,300 sales they could have had! Now if everyone who would have bought some, but didnt, deciding to vote with only their wallet and not their voice, then there is no way for ANet to know how many sales they lost. They will only see the 700 that are, and not the 3,000 that could have been. And then pat themselves on the back for a successful endeavor, whats more they will take this "success" to heart and continue to use similar practices in the future, and thus continue to loose out on total sales in the future. Thats why its important to speak up, and not only votw with your wallet, but your voice as well. Oh, I wasn't implying anyone shouldn't voice their opinion. I do think people are/were overreacting a bit, which tends to get their opinions jumped on and even potentially ignored by those that should see it. Unfortunately there has been a lot of salt spewed over this addition to the game, and a lot of people are up in arms over it. People forget that you can give scathing feedback in a polite manner. Which achieves your goal of being heard, expressing your ire, and being perfectly within the rules. Its an art form. Too many people just start screaming, rolling on the floor, and demanding people lose their jobs. Fair point, I dont care for the "immoral", and "greedy" arguements popping up here. All the bashing and name calling is uncalled for. They are a business trying to make money, as all business make money. I disagree with their methods, but need we insult them? Completely uncalled for. Are they greedy? Ive never known a business that wasnt, the whole point of a business is to make as much money as possible. Is it immoral for a business to be greedy and try to make as much money as possible? Absolutely not, if it were, then it would be immoral to open a business in the first place, as once again, the purpose of a business is to do just that. Continuing such a debate only derails the thread, makes you appear childish, and causes your original stance/request, what may at first have been amicable, fall on death ears. I'm going to throw 'predatory' into that list, but that's just my opinion. I do concur though; for the most part we seem to be on the same page. As the saying goes "Businesses are in business to make money" That too, didnt intentionally leave it out. Everyone who has ever worked in marketing, knows that everything from the way merchandice is oranized on a shelf, to the color schemes painted throughout the building, and even the genre, pace, and tempo of the music played on the loudspeaker is meant to unconciously comvince you to stay longer, buy more. Spend more money. Business have thousand of marketing technices targeting certain consumers and buying habbits. McDonalds, which is a hamberger place, sells fried chicken in the Philippines, just about every American restraunt does. Even if they are specifically targeting people who "pressure buy" it is simply a marketing technique, one that every single store in the world uses. Seasonal drinks are starbucks, limited time promotional disney pen that will never be sold again. This is not preditory, its marketing. Or prehaps you could say all marketing is preditory, either way, it is the way of money. And even if it were immoral, it would simply be something every corperation is guilty of.Right, it is either all predatory, or none of if it is. It's all very carefully choreographed to increase the likeliness of the customer spending money. I mean, people just need to step back and think about it. How often do people go into a store for an "item or two" and end up walking out with a whole basket? Quite often, if not the majority of the time. Why? Because things were placed "just so" along their path to that common "item or two" which triggered that "oh and I should probably pick up this" or the "that looks good" reaction, thus generating more sales. Its just smart marketing.

You expected a response beyond "we're reading your comments"? Really?

Yes, each of those is a gamble. Everything is a gamble to some extent, when you use the very general sense of the word. Life itself is a gamble. Just sitting in your chair is a gamble. You run the risk of it breaking and dropping you on the floor, potentially hurting you in the process. Or the ceiling falling on your head. Or even your desk suddenly collapsing into your lap. All of these things are highly unlikely, but the risk exists. No one likes to look at it from that perspective though. While you certainly could say everything in a game, or indeed life, is a gamble, If you apply the word to everything, it completely looses its significance and relevance. Therefore we must only use 'Gambling' as it's intended definition applies. Spending real money, on one of a variety of options, to which the obtained outcome does not envolve the power of choice, and leaves everything to random chance, is a form of gambling. This is akin to placing a $5 bill in a casino slot machine, pressing the button, and watching the meter spin around in circles over 30 possible items before stopping on one. If that is considered gambling in a casino -and make no mistake it is- it is gambling here too. But deffinitions aside, regardless of whether we call this "adoption" gambling or not, is irrelevant. The simple fact of the mater is I dont like it; there is huuuuge risk that ill waste a LOT of money obtaining things i dont want instead of buying something I do. Its not worth the risk, not worth the money, so I wont do it. And im not alone. Period. Simple as that. Yes, it is gambling by the broad definition of the term. The problem with trying to apply it the way you, and others, are trying to apply it implies the "legal" definition of "gamble", which this doesn't meet the requirements for. At least not at this time. If it did, it would require legal oversight, like a casino. And the game would likely require people to be at least 18 to play it at that point. This has a guaranteed reward. You are purchasing an item and exchanging it for another. Yes, there is risk in that you may not get the skin you are after; however, you are guaranteed a skin for every purchase. "Gambling" in the sense people are trying to apply it, has no guarantees which is where it's 'risk' comes in. More often than not you will get nothing, because that is how it is set up to work. Yes, you will eventually get something, but in the long run you typically lose more than you gain. Here you lose nothing, it is an equal trade. You may not like the skin. You may not ever use it. But you never, ever get nothing. You may view it as "getting nothing" because you do not like it, or because you do not use it, but it does remain that you do actually get something (of equal value. this is actually important to note). No, actually, I thought i made myself quite clear, I was not using the legal definition of 'Gambling', but the 'spirit of the word', ie: its 'intended definition.' Again, as I said, the word itself doesnt mater, the point is many of us are unhappy with ANets merchanidzing practices, and as such we request they amend them. Until they do, we will not be spending money on these items, and ANet will lose a large chunck of their possible income. It would therefore be in our best interest as players/consumers, and their's as a business/producer, to choose more consumer friendly, and thus profitable marketing practices. We, or at least I(as it would be foolheardly to claim I speak for all the dissenters) are trying desperately to send this message to the Devs because I love their game, and DO want to spend money on it, DO want to support it, and DO want to aquire some of these items. But the manor in which I support IS important, I would not let my own family starve just to feed a starving child. I care about the future and success of the game, and that is why I post complaints and suggestions: to bring GW2 back to a place where I can happily support them. A deal that is just as lucrative for them as it is for me. It's hard to believe you're using the 'spirit of the word' when you compare it to a slot machine which has no guaranteed return. Regardless, we agree that it fits the broader term, moving on. I understand where you're coming from. You don't agree with the RNG aspect of it, and as such won't buy them. That's fine. Typically that's my advice to most people - don't like it, don't buy it. That's not any different than what I do when I don't agree with something. Vote with your wallet. That said, I don't think it's going away. Which is why I made the suggestions that I did earlier in the thread - 1) give us non-rng cash shop skins that we can straight up buy if we like them (I should probably specify both individual skins as well as bundles, otherwise they'll just stick us with bundles, which not everyone likes), 2) give us non-rng in game skins that we can hunt down and earn, 3) adjust the BLS to allow us to at least limit the RNG by the mount type we want a skin for. I think between the 3 of these, it might assuage most peoples ire. I agree with all of this. Only, voting with your wallet but not your voice isnt enough. Lets say they sell 700 of these skins, there was a total of 3,000 that would have been sold if players could choose which one they wanted rather than have to pay into a RNG system, but because they made it RNG they only sold 700. Thats a loss of 2,300 sales they could have had! Now if everyone who would have bought some, but didnt, deciding to vote with only their wallet and not their voice, then there is no way for ANet to know how many sales they lost. They will only see the 700 that are, and not the 3,000 that could have been. And then pat themselves on the back for a successful endeavor, whats more they will take this "success" to heart and continue to use similar practices in the future, and thus continue to loose out on total sales in the future. Thats why its important to speak up, and not only votw with your wallet, but your voice as well. Oh, I wasn't implying anyone shouldn't voice their opinion. I do think people are/were overreacting a bit, which tends to get their opinions jumped on and even potentially ignored by those that should see it. Unfortunately there has been a lot of salt spewed over this addition to the game, and a lot of people are up in arms over it. People forget that you can give scathing feedback in a polite manner. Which achieves your goal of being heard, expressing your ire, and being perfectly within the rules. Its an art form. Too many people just start screaming, rolling on the floor, and demanding people lose their jobs. Fair point, I dont care for the "immoral", and "greedy" arguements popping up here. All the bashing and name calling is uncalled for. They are a business trying to make money, as all business make money. I disagree with their methods, but need we insult them? Completely uncalled for. Are they greedy? Ive never known a business that wasnt, the whole point of a business is to make as much money as possible. Is it immoral for a business to be greedy and try to make as much money as possible? Absolutely not, if it were, then it would be immoral to open a business in the first place, as once again, the purpose of a business is to do just that. Continuing such a debate only derails the thread, makes you appear childish, and causes your original stance/request, what may at first have been amicable, fall on death ears.I'm going to throw 'predatory' into that list, but that's just my opinion. I do concur though; for the most part we seem to be on the same page. As the saying goes "Businesses are in business to make money"

Yes, each of those is a gamble. Everything is a gamble to some extent, when you use the very general sense of the word. Life itself is a gamble. Just sitting in your chair is a gamble. You run the risk of it breaking and dropping you on the floor, potentially hurting you in the process. Or the ceiling falling on your head. Or even your desk suddenly collapsing into your lap. All of these things are highly unlikely, but the risk exists. No one likes to look at it from that perspective though. While you certainly could say everything in a game, or indeed life, is a gamble, If you apply the word to everything, it completely looses its significance and relevance. Therefore we must only use 'Gambling' as it's intended definition applies. Spending real money, on one of a variety of options, to which the obtained outcome does not envolve the power of choice, and leaves everything to random chance, is a form of gambling. This is akin to placing a $5 bill in a casino slot machine, pressing the button, and watching the meter spin around in circles over 30 possible items before stopping on one. If that is considered gambling in a casino -and make no mistake it is- it is gambling here too. But deffinitions aside, regardless of whether we call this "adoption" gambling or not, is irrelevant. The simple fact of the mater is I dont like it; there is huuuuge risk that ill waste a LOT of money obtaining things i dont want instead of buying something I do. Its not worth the risk, not worth the money, so I wont do it. And im not alone. Period. Simple as that. Yes, it is gambling by the broad definition of the term. The problem with trying to apply it the way you, and others, are trying to apply it implies the "legal" definition of "gamble", which this doesn't meet the requirements for. At least not at this time. If it did, it would require legal oversight, like a casino. And the game would likely require people to be at least 18 to play it at that point. This has a guaranteed reward. You are purchasing an item and exchanging it for another. Yes, there is risk in that you may not get the skin you are after; however, you are guaranteed a skin for every purchase. "Gambling" in the sense people are trying to apply it, has no guarantees which is where it's 'risk' comes in. More often than not you will get nothing, because that is how it is set up to work. Yes, you will eventually get something, but in the long run you typically lose more than you gain. Here you lose nothing, it is an equal trade. You may not like the skin. You may not ever use it. But you never, ever get nothing. You may view it as "getting nothing" because you do not like it, or because you do not use it, but it does remain that you do actually get something (of equal value. this is actually important to note). No, actually, I thought i made myself quite clear, I was not using the legal definition of 'Gambling', but the 'spirit of the word', ie: its 'intended definition.' Again, as I said, the word itself doesnt mater, the point is many of us are unhappy with ANets merchanidzing practices, and as such we request they amend them. Until they do, we will not be spending money on these items, and ANet will lose a large chunck of their possible income. It would therefore be in our best interest as players/consumers, and their's as a business/producer, to choose more consumer friendly, and thus profitable marketing practices. We, or at least I(as it would be foolheardly to claim I speak for all the dissenters) are trying desperately to send this message to the Devs because I love their game, and DO want to spend money on it, DO want to support it, and DO want to aquire some of these items. But the manor in which I support IS important, I would not let my own family starve just to feed a starving child. I care about the future and success of the game, and that is why I post complaints and suggestions: to bring GW2 back to a place where I can happily support them. A deal that is just as lucrative for them as it is for me. It's hard to believe you're using the 'spirit of the word' when you compare it to a slot machine which has no guaranteed return. Regardless, we agree that it fits the broader term, moving on. I understand where you're coming from. You don't agree with the RNG aspect of it, and as such won't buy them. That's fine. Typically that's my advice to most people - don't like it, don't buy it. That's not any different than what I do when I don't agree with something. Vote with your wallet. That said, I don't think it's going away. Which is why I made the suggestions that I did earlier in the thread - 1) give us non-rng cash shop skins that we can straight up buy if we like them (I should probably specify both individual skins as well as bundles, otherwise they'll just stick us with bundles, which not everyone likes), 2) give us non-rng in game skins that we can hunt down and earn, 3) adjust the BLS to allow us to at least limit the RNG by the mount type we want a skin for. I think between the 3 of these, it might assuage most peoples ire. I agree with all of this. Only, voting with your wallet but not your voice isnt enough. Lets say they sell 700 of these skins, there was a total of 3,000 that would have been sold if players could choose which one they wanted rather than have to pay into a RNG system, but because they made it RNG they only sold 700. Thats a loss of 2,300 sales they could have had! Now if everyone who would have bought some, but didnt, deciding to vote with only their wallet and not their voice, then there is no way for ANet to know how many sales they lost. They will only see the 700 that are, and not the 3,000 that could have been. And then pat themselves on the back for a successful endeavor, whats more they will take this "success" to heart and continue to use similar practices in the future, and thus continue to loose out on total sales in the future. Thats why its important to speak up, and not only votw with your wallet, but your voice as well.Oh, I wasn't implying anyone shouldn't voice their opinion. I do think people are/were overreacting a bit, which tends to get their opinions jumped on and even potentially ignored by those that should see it. Unfortunately there has been a lot of salt spewed over this addition to the game, and a lot of people are up in arms over it. People forget that you can give scathing feedback in a polite manner. Which achieves your goal of being heard, expressing your ire, and being perfectly within the rules. Its an art form. Too many people just start screaming, rolling on the floor, and demanding people lose their jobs.

It did get merged, my response to it ended up on 54 I think. shrug

Yes, each of those is a gamble. Everything is a gamble to some extent, when you use the very general sense of the word. Life itself is a gamble. Just sitting in your chair is a gamble. You run the risk of it breaking and dropping you on the floor, potentially hurting you in the process. Or the ceiling falling on your head. Or even your desk suddenly collapsing into your lap. All of these things are highly unlikely, but the risk exists. No one likes to look at it from that perspective though. While you certainly could say everything in a game, or indeed life, is a gamble, If you apply the word to everything, it completely looses its significance and relevance. Therefore we must only use 'Gambling' as it's intended definition applies. Spending real money, on one of a variety of options, to which the obtained outcome does not envolve the power of choice, and leaves everything to random chance, is a form of gambling. This is akin to placing a $5 bill in a casino slot machine, pressing the button, and watching the meter spin around in circles over 30 possible items before stopping on one. If that is considered gambling in a casino -and make no mistake it is- it is gambling here too. But deffinitions aside, regardless of whether we call this "adoption" gambling or not, is irrelevant. The simple fact of the mater is I dont like it; there is huuuuge risk that ill waste a LOT of money obtaining things i dont want instead of buying something I do. Its not worth the risk, not worth the money, so I wont do it. And im not alone. Period. Simple as that. Yes, it is gambling by the broad definition of the term. The problem with trying to apply it the way you, and others, are trying to apply it implies the "legal" definition of "gamble", which this doesn't meet the requirements for. At least not at this time. If it did, it would require legal oversight, like a casino. And the game would likely require people to be at least 18 to play it at that point. This has a guaranteed reward. You are purchasing an item and exchanging it for another. Yes, there is risk in that you may not get the skin you are after; however, you are guaranteed a skin for every purchase. "Gambling" in the sense people are trying to apply it, has no guarantees which is where it's 'risk' comes in. More often than not you will get nothing, because that is how it is set up to work. Yes, you will eventually get something, but in the long run you typically lose more than you gain. Here you lose nothing, it is an equal trade. You may not like the skin. You may not ever use it. But you never, ever get nothing. You may view it as "getting nothing" because you do not like it, or because you do not use it, but it does remain that you do actually get something (of equal value. this is actually important to note). No, actually, I thought i made myself quite clear, I was not using the legal definition of 'Gambling', but the 'spirit of the word', ie: its 'intended definition.' Again, as I said, the word itself doesnt mater, the point is many of us are unhappy with ANets merchanidzing practices, and as such we request they amend them. Until they do, we will not be spending money on these items, and ANet will lose a large chunck of their possible income. It would therefore be in our best interest as players/consumers, and their's as a business/producer, to choose more consumer friendly, and thus profitable marketing practices. We, or at least I(as it would be foolheardly to claim I speak for all the dissenters) are trying desperately to send this message to the Devs because I love their game, and DO want to spend money on it, DO want to support it, and DO want to aquire some of these items. But the manor in which I support IS important, I would not let my own family starve just to feed a starving child. I care about the future and success of the game, and that is why I post complaints and suggestions: to bring GW2 back to a place where I can happily support them. A deal that is just as lucrative for them as it is for me.It's hard to believe you're using the 'spirit of the word' when you compare it to a slot machine which has no guaranteed return. Regardless, we agree that it fits the broader term, moving on. I understand where you're coming from. You don't agree with the RNG aspect of it, and as such won't buy them. That's fine. Typically that's my advice to most people - don't like it, don't buy it. That's not any different than what I do when I don't agree with something. Vote with your wallet. That said, I don't think it's going away. Which is why I made the suggestions that I did earlier in the thread - 1) give us non-rng cash shop skins that we can straight up buy if we like them (I should probably specify both individual skins as well as bundles, otherwise they'll just stick us with bundles, which not everyone likes), 2) give us non-rng in game skins that we can hunt down and earn, 3) adjust the BLS to allow us to at least limit the RNG by the mount type we want a skin for. I think between the 3 of these, it might assuage most peoples ire.

What are you risking in any of those other than time in a game that has no subscription fee? Time. As other threads have argued, time has value. It is more valuable to some than others, but it tends to be a heated point of contention among players regarding how much value it has. Efficiency and doing things as quickly has possible because their time is valuable has been the excuse given many times when people kick others from their groups for not having the right armor, or the right traits, or the right skills. Ringing any bells?

Yes, each of those is a gamble. Everything is a gamble to some extent, when you use the very general sense of the word. Life itself is a gamble. Just sitting in your chair is a gamble. You run the risk of it breaking and dropping you on the floor, potentially hurting you in the process. Or the ceiling falling on your head. Or even your desk suddenly collapsing into your lap. All of these things are highly unlikely, but the risk exists. No one likes to look at it from that perspective though. While you certainly could say everything in a game, or indeed life, is a gamble, If you apply the word to everything, it completely looses its significance and relevance. Therefore we must only use 'Gambling' as it's intended definition applies. Spending real money, on one of a variety of options, to which the obtained outcome does not envolve the power of choice, and leaves everything to random chance, is a form of gambling. This is akin to placing a $5 bill in a casino slot machine, pressing the button, and watching the meter spin around in circles over 30 possible items before stopping on one. If that is considered gambling in a casino -and make no mistake it is- it is gambling here too. But deffinitions aside, regardless of whether we call this "adoption" gambling or not, is irrelevant. The simple fact of the mater is I dont like it; there is huuuuge risk that ill waste a LOT of money obtaining things i dont want instead of buying something I do. Its not worth the risk, not worth the money, so I wont do it. And im not alone. Period. Simple as that.Yes, it is gambling by the broad definition of the term. The problem with trying to apply it the way you, and others, are trying to apply it implies the "legal" definition of "gamble", which this doesn't meet the requirements for. At least not at this time. If it did, it would require legal oversight, like a casino. And the game would likely require people to be at least 18 to play it at that point. This has a guaranteed reward. You are purchasing an item and exchanging it for another. Yes, there is risk in that you may not get the skin you are after; however, you are guaranteed a skin for every purchase. "Gambling" in the sense people are trying to apply it, has no guarantees which is where it's 'risk' comes in. More often than not you will get nothing, because that is how it is set up to work. Yes, you will eventually get something, but in the long run you typically lose more than you gain. Here you lose nothing, it is an equal trade. You may not like the skin. You may not ever use it. But you never, ever get nothing. You may view it as "getting nothing" because you do not like it, or because you do not use it, but it does remain that you do actually get something (of equal value. this is actually important to note).

Aww aye, I forgot you've to spend real world money on each of those every time you want a try. Sod off with your facetious rubbish. Chicken is not incorrect in their examples. Additionally, you do not need to spend real world money for the mount skins either. It is more convenient to do so, for some. But the option does exist to do it entirely through exchanging gold for gems. It just requires patience and persistence as opposed to instant gratification.

Yes, each of those is a gamble. Everything is a gamble to some extent, when you use the very general sense of the word. Life itself is a gamble. Just sitting in your chair is a gamble. You run the risk of it breaking and dropping you on the floor, potentially hurting you in the process. Or the ceiling falling on your head. Or even your desk suddenly collapsing into your lap. All of these things are highly unlikely, but the risk exists. No one likes to look at it from that perspective though.

I went with most of the time because to me 'rewarding' doesn't typically have anything to do with loot. Most people are going to see 'rewarding' and immediately think about the loot they get, or don't get and the gold they have or don't have. I don't play for loot. I play because I find it fun. Exploring and re-exploring the maps. Doing the story. Leveling a new character. Getting my butt kicked in wvw or spvp. Trying my hand at higher level fractals. Working on achievements. I have things I want to do and things I want to achieve and I work towards them as I play. I have an assortment of goals I want to achieve at any given time and making progress on and completing them is "rewarding" to me. Its what I enjoy, so its what I do. Yes, I do occasionally go out to farm 'specific' things. Generally because I feel the need to upgrade armor or weapons for a character and that's about the only time I feel the game isn't 'rewarding.' For me, who doesn't play hours upon hours a day, and who absolutely isn't the most efficient in her play, this part of 'preparing to play' is the most frustrating for me. This is the only time where 'rewarding' has anything to do with loot. Do I feel the cash shop is killing the game?No, I don't. If I like something, I buy it. If I don't, or I don't agree with the item, then I dont. For example, I will never ever buy an instant lvl 80 scroll. I will never ever buy the waypoint unlock. But other people do, and it therefore doesn't matter if I dont like them. Its an income for Anet that keeps the game that I enjoy running, so I can deal with it. Obviously enough people demanded the item that Anet felt it was worth the time and effort to add it, and in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't affect me at all. Example - One more person on a lvl 80 that doesn't know how to play their class or doesn't know a certain mechanic makes no difference in the bigger picture. There are plenty of people that leveled the normal way and don't know those things too. In the end it simply boils down to "it doesn't affect me, it doesn't affect my play" There is nothing in there that affects me if another player has it. So what if there is a skin in there that I want, but its RNG. I either take my chances and work on it like any other goal, or I move on. Its a want, not a need and that's what makes all the difference for me. (I don't think the poll this was part of should have been merged with this thread necessarily, but it did)

Skipping most of the comments.... Here are my thoughts on the new BLS: I don't hate it. Conversely, I think it could be better. First, I'm fine with some skins being available via rng only. However, we need an equal number of non-rng based skins that are just as nice looking. Preferably via both direct purchase as well as through in game as rewards. Second, getting a guaranteed skin from the BLS is lovely. However, with a pool of 30 skins, many of which some don't want, I feel Anet would be further ahead to let a user at least limit the pool by having the option to select which mount the user would like a skin for. Users may feel more inclined to participate if its a 1 in 6 chance at the skin they really, really want, as opposed to a 1 in 30 chance. Yes that 1 in 'x' dwindles with each purchase, but not everyone wants every skin nor are the interested in sinking $100 into the store in the attempt to get the 1 or 2 they want if RNG does not favor them.

Because people wouldnt be happy with mounts being limited to PoF. Just like they werent happy with gliding originally being limited to HoT. People demanded they bring it to the core game, which Anet did. Which began the invisible walls. Now we have mounts, which obviously added to those walls. Perhaps with time they can come up with a way to make some of the walls 'one way' (such as with Vantage Point), allowing users to get out, but not allow users to get in via inappropriate means.

I admit that I never wanted mounts in game. I could still be completely happy without them. However, Anet has decided to walk this path so I'm rolling with it. We'll see how it goes. I did enjoy the Raptor during the preview weekend (although I foresee falling off many cliffs in my future, because I didn't give myself enough stopping room). I'm reserving my ire for now.