[POLL] Mount Skins Distribution - A Serious Poll

[GrubySzymek.1362]

I know about other thread discussing this subject but I think this topic is perfect for serious poll. I took my best to provide most balanced options without personal bias.

To start, I think it's important to share some facts about current mount skin acquisition:

• It's rng based, 400 gem per ticket per skin
• Whole pack is currently 9600 gems
• Remember that gold2gem exists
• You don't get duplicate from mount skin boxes (so it's 100% you get new skin)
• Game is buy to play so microtransactions are required for it to survive

Let's make it one place for feedback in clear poll format, so Anet can read this and maybe, just maybe, change their ideas for the future.

---

Edit 2017/09/11

First of all I would like to thank everyone for participating, those who already voted or will vote in next hours (or days). The sample is huge. I dare to say this is the most populated vote these forums have ever seen. At the moment of creation of this post 2257 accounts had voted. This is great sample to be used in providing general community opinion about the situation.

The reason why I feel safe to assume the conclusions can be made already is the fact that from the moment we reached about 150 votes, the percentage values are mostly stable, varying 1-2% max as times goes by. It is very rare for any game community to be in such agreement and this is very important for ArenaNet to understand that the situation they created cannot be taken lightly.

I was told in last 2 days that some options of the poll could have been added - like "I would pay for no RNG skin". You are correct but it's impossible to edit the poll and creating new one would provide unwanted confusion. For people sharing this opinion option (Price is fine but I don't like RNG aspect) is the closest and if anyone still wants to vote please choose this one.

That being said, the mentioned option "Price is fine but I don't like RNG aspect" is the one shared within vast majority of playerbase. When this post was created, the poll showed 1455 votes (64% of all votes) that people are fine with paying for skins but the lottery ticket is unacceptable for them.

The poll is obviously followed by huge discussion, both here and in the poll thread. People suggest a lot of things but the most vocal posts seem to be the ones suggesting direct sales for mount skins and different tiering of prices considering that mount skins do not share same "creation value". What I mean by this is that some of the skins (a majority in current skin lottery) are just color patterns without any significant change in comparison to basic mount model. These models have objectively the least "work value".

Some of the mounts are slight iterations of basic models (like shiba jackal). They are something new, something different and they do not offer any additional visual effects or mount travel effects. These should be medium tier of mount price.

The last tier is all those flashy aura mounts. They should have biggest price value, as they add similar effect to legendary weapons, to stand out in the crowd.

The forged jackal is not part of this poll as it's not RNG mount and I am not willing to mix it into this discussion.

I am sure that those RNG mount boxes are big money for ArenaNet. I do not blame you for trying this path. However, please reconsider your position. Players are deeply disturbed by your actions in terms of mount monetization. Revenue is one thing but customer satisfaction and trust is the other. Look how much harm this decision did to PoF release hype. You decided to ask players to create "buzz", to use word of mouth as main marketing tool for this expansion. Look at all the positive reactions people have for the hard work your developers put into recreating and reintroducing the continent of Elona to us. I don't think it's worth to stick to this bussiness strategy just to sabotage all the good vibe you created almost 2 months ago with PoF release. Especially that all this negativity is spreading through internet.

I believe you know it turned out to be more serious than you expected. But with the huge sample of the poll and comments both here and in other social media related to GW2, I hope you change your decision and reitroduce mount monetization in fair model. Because people want to pay you for these skins, but not for lottery or gamble.

Thank you all for your time you wasted reading this ;)

---

EDIT 2017/11/11

Mike O'Brien responded to player concerns. Future mounts are going to be sold in packs or individualy without rng lootboxes. Keep in mind that current set is not going to be changed for obvious reason.

Thank you everyone for voting!

[Ayumi Spender.1082]

Why are these choices limiting?

I'm fine with current state, both price and RNG aspect.Clearly not the choice I would pick.

Price is fine but I don't like RNG aspect.Partially my choice, but I say there should've had a better discount. And that "bundle" should've just been a "Unlock all contract" as in all 31 and not a bundle of contracts.I'm already planning on giving you money on the mounts, don't make me have to buy that bundle and still spend another 400 to get the last one. That's not helping the saving.

RNG aspect is fine but price is too high.Don't support the RNG at all. Not even a little.

Price should be lowered and RNG aspect removed.The price for one is fine. The problem right now is the bundle set up AND the RNG though in my opinion.

I don't care / I don't buy skins anywayI can't say this as I already got the halloween skins... AND I'M STILL BLOODY WAITING ON THE JUNGLE EXPLORER OUTFIT THEY WON'T GIVE ME!

[Jora.5471]

I hate RNG boxes, but I like how Mount Adoption Licences RNG works.

I don't get the same duplicate mount skin that I already bought. I don't get useless items that I don't want.

[Ayumi Spender.1082]

@runeblade.7514 said:I hate RNG boxes, but I like how Mount Adoption Licences RNG works.

I don't get the same duplicate mount skin that I already bought. I don't get useless items that I don't want.

But... you are getting useless items you don't want unless you want every single skin.

[Halbarz.3854]

I am fine with it, since it is optional.Also people are commenting on this like it a subscription based game asking extra cash within their store ....While I do not like lootboxes, I do understand Anets point of view in this.

If I would make a change I would do it that you can select for which mount you want the skin.But this should also increase the cost to 600/700 gems then.

[WARIORSCHARGEING.2637]

rng never good ideas rng loot box worse ideas . radom skins can not sell them even more worse idea 10,000 gems even more far worse idea .this makes me so happy i did not buy pof and i sure would never ever pay or buy these skins mount or other wise. the costs is way too much .

[Sylvari.2953]

I like buying skins as long as I get what I want. But I won't pay for RNG to get skins I don't even want/like.

[hchadw.1097]

Anet should be ashamed of this.. Many of these should have been added as content and of course could have sold a few... This looks so Blatantly disrespectful to your customers, lazy, greedy cash grab, RNG silliness even if you dont get duplicates, (Whats the point). And yet again ... brings me back to the other extremely annoying thing! Example Forged Hound skin.. WHY is this on gemstore... why did you not put it in with some Forged Quests and More hunting around for items to earn it instead of being LAZY and trying to make a quick Buck on the gemstore... EVERYONE SEES THIS!

[Hokk.1954]

I feel like there were much better ways to handle this. For example, gold fractal weapons have the rng option with a recipe that uses a handful of golden frac relics, but also the option of picking the weapon you want if you want to spend more. Something as simple as a "pick your mount" with a price tag of 600-800 gems would have reduced a lot of the complaints. I would have happily bought ~3k gems to get one I like for each mount and be done with it or I would consider taking a risk for a few more. However, with the way this is rng unless you want to spend more than the game itself with no alternative approach and the fact that some of these skins were probably held back from the game since this is so close to PoF launch I will not spend a dime.

[Doctor Hide.6345]

I don't mind spending money on skins, but what I hate is the RNG tied to it to grab people who have gambling and impulse problems. Lootboxes are a bane upon the gaming world, and governments are slow at the moment to regulate it as gambling. If I could pick the skins I want. I would be fine with it.

I don't mind spending money on A-net. In fact, I want to spend money on them to support them, but this is not the way to do it. RNG is not the way to do it.

[crashburntoo.7431]

They've picked a price point of 300-400 gems, bulk and sales accounted for. Per skin and measured against armor and gliders, this isn't a bad price. I can't argue with that. It's the RNG that's so disappointing. I don't have the metrics that Anet has, so maybe this was the best marketing method based on projected profits. If that's the case, I guess I can't argue with that either. I just see that as a short term gain for a long term loss. I love the game, and I really don't want them to recognize that long term loss.

Edit: I have no explanation for the 2000 gem mount outside of unadulterated greed. You could try to spin it as "deluxe", but that warrants a x2 at best, not x5 on the "standard" price.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

I chose no RNG and lower prices because the single mount and no RNG is 2000 gems, which is way too high. However if it’s no RNG but 400 gems then the 400 gems is ok.

But no RNG!!!!

[hertigknut.8475]

Not been this disappointing in anet for a long time - this is just horrible. I HATE RNG. Not buying any gems until the change it.

[Oglaf.1074]

If the Warhound is anything to go by, the price is too high.

And of course the gambling aspect is utter, utter kitten to begin with also.

[ThFH.6048]

I bought the Halloweens ones without a question because I liked the skins and how they were priced. It was a bundle but I felt that it was an okay price of 2000 gems because to me personally mounts are worth a little bit more than gliders so even though I wanted one or two skins I felt it was worth buying them all. However with the Halloween ones even though I paid more to get two skins I liked I exactly knew what I get for my money and that is what I liked about it. I am totally fine with the black lion chests and there RNG concept since that is what they have always been and I have supported it in my own way by using gems to gold to buy skins I liked from the black lion skins. However with mounts there no such option and that I dislike, I assumed that when the halloween ones were released new mount skins would be bundled and I was fine with that idea and even buying them for one or two skins.

[Jora.5471]

@Ayumi Spender.1082 said:

@runeblade.7514 said:I hate RNG boxes, but I like how Mount Adoption Licences RNG works.

I don't get the same duplicate mount skin that I already bought. I don't get useless items that I don't want.

But... you are getting useless items you don't want unless you want every single skin.

But it is not useless. You can always use that skin forever.

[Butch.4957]

God dammit, fat fingered on mobile and did not notice until too late to change. Meant to pick price is fine but no RNG

[Ayumi Spender.1082]

@runeblade.7514 said:

@Ayumi Spender.1082 said:

@runeblade.7514 said:I hate RNG boxes, but I like how Mount Adoption Licences RNG works.

I don't get the same duplicate mount skin that I already bought. I don't get useless items that I don't want.

But... you are getting useless items you don't want unless you want every single skin.

But it is not useless. You can always use that skin forever.

It's useless if you never plan on using it.That's like saying a horse shaving kit is not useless to me because I could always get a horse and use that kit on that horse whenever I get one.

My Fallen Balthazar outfit is useless as I will never have a use for it. Someone else? Yes. Me? No.

[Solys.2736]

This is such a worrisome sale move... Arena-Net.. I feel like I wasted all my money on you. I truly feel cheated today and disgusting because I helped bring people in this game, many friends, which each of us has spent(on this company) far above the worth in gameplay and content we ever absorbed. I mean there are so many which spend far above the value of your products already with far less time spent absorbing what they purchased.. There's no way with the already exorbitant prices in the gem store that the game is not already making enough. This is PURE GREED.

[AegisRunestone.8672]

No RNG. Fine with 400 gems.

[Kichwas.7152]

I buy these things ALL THE TIME in other MMOs when they ARE NOT RANDOM.

I've bought stacks of them in WoW, ESO, Wildstar, and even the ultimate 'pay to play' MMO Neverwinter... the MMO that has more lootboxes than you can shake a stick at, Neverwinter... does NOT make the mounts random...So I buy them there...

But I don't see any reason to buy them here, until I can pick which one I get.

[nastyjman.8207]

You know what kittens me off with this? I'm sure ANet is aware of the current outrage at lootboxes, and here they are, implementing a lootbox mechanic to mount skins. I love this game, but this decision just rubbed me the wrong way.

[odrez.8409]

Please consider that these decisions are made by individuals and it is likely that most employees of Arena Net had no say in this or didn't know about it. Introducing RNG boxes is shady and at the current time a very bad decision - the outcry of players of many different games was pretty clear: People don't want to support RNG based microtransactions. They're bad, they're exploiting impulsive buyers and we want to make informed decisions when we want to support the devs.

Please, whoever is in charge of this, don't do this to the company. It's bad press and it makes players go away faster than imaginable.

[Doam.8305]

I mount with visual effects I understand could be higherMounts that change the look of the mount should be lower than the elemental ones like the cottontail springersThe plain and average ones should be lower than the design and elemental ones

More importantly mounts are typically the device to keep people playing the game for extended periods of time for instane the griffon mount. They could have had quest chains that unlocked certain mounts and tossed some as wvw, pvp, and raid rewards. Some mounts could be a 1% drop on your first kill per dungeon per reset or per week.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@"Kheldorn.5123" thanks for putting together a more neutral thread on the topic. I know you tried to present appropriate options, but I couldn't find one that fit how I feel:

• I'm fine with the price and the RNG. I just won't actually be spending any gems on the license.

Skins are optional in this game; they don't provide anything other than a way to look different. 400 gems for a mount seems fair. RNG for anything seems okay because obviously it works (the gem:gold ratio spiked today from ~85g per 400 gems yesterday to 130g per 400 gems this morning).

So I don't have a problem with the principle. I just don't like enough of the skins to be willing to spend that much without getting to choose.

That's consistent with how I felt about the spooky mount outfits, too. I would have paid 800 for two of them, but I didn't want the other three and I'm not willing to spend 1200 "extra".

tl;dr thanks for poll. I would have voted: price is ok, rng is ok, but I'm choosing not to spend.