[POLL] Mount Skins Distribution - A Serious Poll

[eris.9654]

I have always been someone that is more then willing to shell out real cash or convert gems to pick up something from the gem store. I have almost every glider, and probably over 50% of every weapon, outfit, and armor skin ever released. I even bought the Spooky Mounts package. The RNG mount skins and a stand alone 2,000 gem skin is outrageous. There is no way that I will be unlocking these for my account with current acquisition method.

[Verdant Hatchet.8612]

I’d be willing to pay 400 gems for the skin I want no problem. But with the RNG? Absolutely not. This random lootbox system is a disgusting way of pumping money out of players, especially those with addictive personalities or gambling problems.

And is this what Anet thinks of us? Are we just moneybags they need to squeeze as many pennies out of as possible?

It’s disgusting and disrespectful. Just offer us the skins straight up and don’t try to suck money out of us with this stupid RNG.

[Manasa Devi.7958]

@Moonjelly.3742 said:Considering the obvious work that went into a lot of those skins, I feel that the price is certainly reasonable. The RNG aspect of it? That can take a flying leap into a black hole.I might have not been so against this if it was setup so you could buy RNG tickets for each mount type separately. I don't want to sink in gems and end up with say only Jackal, or only Skimmer skins in the end. I only really use the raptor for the most part and I don't have the Griffon, so it would just be a waste.Exactly my objection. I use only 2 out of 5 mounts with any regularity. I'd like to buy skins for them that aren't gimmicky, ugly or otherwise terrible, with 4 dye channels. There's 36 alternative mount skins now, and I can't just buy 1 or 2 that I want. That's terribly unaccommodating, and I won't bend over for it.

[Shirlias.8104]

Fine with Both

• Recolor or less aesthetic improvements for 400gems ( 320 if bundle ) is fine.
• 2000 gems for a real skin is fine.
• About RNG i don't really care, but if they are going to remove it ( or just to allow the players to buy a single skin ) the price should be doubled in order to justify the RNG and the Bundle.

[skigorn.7910]

Although I've learned that skins are fun for about a day or two, then you get tired of them. Not worth the price tag they put on them.

[Dust Errant.3081]

I'd go with a higher price if it meant taking away the RNG aspect honestly, which isn't an option. I'm relatively fine with it as is, Anet has to make money, and skins are skins, it's not like they're necessary to play the game. I will say, I feel like they needed to find a better middle ground overall. The mounts with different skin patters for example, I'd be fine with as they are, RNG and all, but the ones with more particle effects would have been nice sold separately at a higher price point.

[Shirlias.8104]

@Eltiana.9420 said:Anet has to make money, and skins are skins, it's not like they're necessary to play the game.

God, thanks!Finally some other player said it.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

@Shirlias.8104 said:

@Eltiana.9420 said:

Anet has to make money

, and skins are skins, it's not like they're necessary to play the game.

God, thanks!Finally some other player said it.

Well... I adressed this in opening post you know. Most people here don't mind paying for mounts. The only gripe is RNG gate.

[Oglaf.1074]

@Shirlias.8104 said:

@Eltiana.9420 said:

Anet has to make money

, and skins are skins, it's not like they're necessary to play the game.

God, thanks!Finally some other player said it.

And nobody is complaining about buying premium content.

What people are complaining about is gambling for premium content.

Maybe read the criticism before fanboying out and blindly defending Anet next time?

[GrubySzymek.1362]

@Eltiana.9420 said:I'd go with a higher price if it meant taking away the RNG aspect honestly, which isn't an option. I'm relatively fine with it as is, Anet has to make money, and skins are skins, it's not like they're necessary to play the game. I will say, I feel like they needed to find a better middle ground overall. The mounts with different skin patters for example, I'd be fine with as they are, RNG and all, but the ones with more particle effects would have been nice sold separately at a higher price point.

Some people mentioned it already and indeed now I agree I should have thought about this option. Unfortunately there is no way to edit the poll now. Anyway the one you chose is probably closest to your opinion on this case. Thanks for voting!

[Mrs Lana.2506]

I might have bought some of these outright if there was no RNG aspect.

I REFUSE to support a company that promotes gambling to children. This is a game rated for kids ffs. I'm getting what I can out of PoF because I will not fund the scummy workings of a company like this any more.

[Malokia.9308]

Guess the RNG part is price for considerably low cost in gems per skin. But what we got would work mostly for those who want all / can afford to get all. How about additional option of chosed skin with higher prize for those who liked like 3-4 of them all? (and personally I liked most more 'natural' ones, like the bob-tailed springer). Id personally agre to pay more if I get to chose the ones I actually like and will be using.

[morrolan.9608]

Shame on anet for this, and MOB for presumably approving it.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@Ohoni.6057 said:Looking the skins over (you can preview them in the wardrobe), there are clearly "Rare" skins and "common" skins in there. I mean I have no idea what the drop rates are, but just in terms of quality, there are some that are just minor tweaks to the existing ones, and others that clearly had some effort put into them and are flashier. This can be justified with RNG, you might get the cool one, you might get the lame one.

If they made them direct purchases, they would have to give them varied pricing, and I'm ok with that. If the baseline was 400 gems, that would be a rip-off, the "common" skins are not worth 400. But I would be willing to pay 200 for the commons, and maybe up to 600 for the "rares."

Well said.I'd nitpick some of your details, even as I agree with the principles/description. I'd actually be willing to spend 650-800 on the fancier ones, four hundred on some of the themed ones, and I don't care what price the others are: I wouldn't pay 50 gems for the striped raptor, for example.

[Manasa Devi.7958]

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:Looking the skins over (you can preview them in the wardrobe), there are clearly "Rare" skins and "common" skins in there. I mean I have no idea what the drop rates are, but just in terms of quality, there are some that are just minor tweaks to the existing ones, and others that clearly had some effort put into them and are flashier. This can be justified with RNG, you might get the cool one, you might get the lame one.

If they made them direct purchases, they would have to give them varied pricing, and I'm ok with that. If the baseline was 400 gems, that would be a rip-off, the "common" skins are not worth 400. But I would be willing to pay 200 for the commons, and maybe up to 600 for the "rares."

Well said.I'd nitpick some of your details, even as I agree with the principles/description. I'd actually be willing to spend 650-800 on the fancier ones, four hundred on some of the themed ones, and I don't care what price the others are: I wouldn't pay 50 gems for the striped raptor, for example.

Can't account for taste. I wouldn't use a mount with particle effects if I got it for free, but I would pay 800 gems for the striped raptor if I knew it had 4 dye channels.

[Lunarlife.5128]

This is, as most are, a biased survey. Please include options that cover the possibilities. I would like a price/rarity needs to increase option.

[Shirlias.8104]

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Shirlias.8104 said:

@Eltiana.9420 said:

Anet has to make money

, and skins are skins, it's not like they're necessary to play the game.

God, thanks!Finally some other player said it.

Well... I adressed this in opening post you know. Most people here don't mind paying for mounts. The only gripe is RNG gate.

I would like just to see if with a

1. rng = 320gems

and a

2. not rng= 700gems there won't be any complain.

I think many players do want the same price without the RNG gate instead of a trade ( just in order to allow ANET to gain some money ).Currently is somehow like the spooky mounts ( which was at first OMG only through bundle! ), though slightly different.

ps: And i want to underline that in order to buy a bundle to save gems, many players will probably buy gems with real money ( what ANET probably hope ) instead of buying every single skin for 400 gems ( which will cost 80 gems more per skin. 20% extra ). ANET needs somebody to buy gems for real money, not golds.

And i do understand that it is pretty unfair not to give a choice, but it's optional, and we have no sub, nor pay to win.

[Troll Tamer.7421]

I'm fine with the price but against the RNG aspect.

I think its okay for right now that the skins are only attainable through gem store purchases, but I hope that as Anet reassess PoF's replayability they would consider adding unique, non-gemstore mount skins unlocked through collections/achievements. I think it would be nice to have some opportunities to get mount skins through non-gemstore means.

I think the collections/achievements could be awesome miniquests, filled with flavor/lore that would really add background not only to the mount but also the world/PoF. Ideally I think the non-gemstore mount skins should fill a range of content, some shorter, cheaper, less involved achievements for less flashy mount skins, up to long, expensive collections for the flashy, particle effect mount tier.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@Oglaf.1074 said:What people are complaining about is gambling for premium content.

Skins now count as "content"?There's plenty to complain about, let's not invent things just to give ANet a hard time.

[Oglaf.1074]

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Oglaf.1074 said:What people are complaining about is

gambling for premium content

.

Skins now count as "content"?There's plenty to complain about, let's not invent things just to give ANet a hard time.

Erhm yes, it is premium content. Skins are contents, both regular and premium.

Per definition.

Content is not synonymous with gameplay such as expansion packs or living world story unlocks you know.

[crashburntoo.7431]

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@Shirlias.8104 said:

@Eltiana.9420 said:

Anet has to make money

, and skins are skins, it's not like they're necessary to play the game.

God, thanks!Finally some other player said it.

And nobody is complaining about

buying premium content

.

What people are complaining about is

gambling for premium content

.

Exactly, most people are fine with the what and the how much, but very few people are fine with the how marketed. I'm 100% for a company making products and selling them to those that are interested. I like rewarding a good company that makes quality products or provides a quality service. Those companies should make profit, for sure.

The only reason that anyone would gate these skins behind RNG is because the metrics indicated that you would make more money. How was this money made? By preying on some people's need to chase certain content or to "have 'em all". What's the end result of this? I would venture that it's a short term gain for a long term loss. The people that spend far more than they should can't sustain that. The people that could have spent reasonably refuse to gamble. The only sustainable income would be from "whales"; their disposable income can handle a lot. Anet better hope that they don't do something that makes these "whales" angry (like leave parts of the game unbalanced for too long or forget to add certain types of content that these people want). I know I certainly wouldn't want to be at the mercy of a few people with a lot of money. I'd rather satisfy a large and diverse customer base to help me ride through the good and the bad that's inevitable in business.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@Manasa Devi.7958 said:

I'd actually be willing to spend 650-800 on the fancier ones, four hundred on some of the themed ones, and I don't care what price the others are: I wouldn't pay 50 gems for the striped raptor, for example.

Can't account for taste. I wouldn't use a mount with particle effects if I got it for free, but I would pay 800 gems for the striped raptor if I knew it had 4 dye channels.

Interesting. I felt it looks just like the current raptor, with a racing stripe.Proves the point I often make in threads about skins: no matter how ugly one thinks a skin is, 10-30% of the community will love it. No matter how much one loves a skin, there's also 10-30% who can't stand it

so again, details aside, I think we agree that there are some skins we'd pay more than 400 gems for... if we got to choose.

[FrizzFreston.5290]

@Shirlias.8104 said:

@Kheldorn.5123 said:

@Shirlias.8104 said:

@Eltiana.9420 said:

Anet has to make money

, and skins are skins, it's not like they're necessary to play the game.

God, thanks!Finally some other player said it.

Well... I adressed this in opening post you know. Most people here don't mind paying for mounts. The only gripe is RNG gate.

I would like just to see if with a

1. rng
   = 320gems

and a

2. not rng
   = 700gems there won't be any complain.

I think many players do want the same price without the RNG gate instead of a trade ( just in order to allow ANET to gain some money ).Currently is somehow like the spooky mounts ( which was at first OMG only through bundle! ), though slightly different.

ps: And i want to underline that in order to buy a bundle to save gems, many players will probably buy gems with real money ( what ANET probably hope ) instead of buying every single skin for 400 gems ( which will cost 80 gems more per skin. 20% extra ). ANET needs somebody to buy gems for real money, not golds.

And i do understand that it is pretty unfair not to give a choice, but it's optional, and we have no sub, nor pay to win.

I understand you point of view, really. But any gambling is frowned upon in general. I think with your increased prices there would be no outrage at all. Maybe some minor complaints that they are too expensive here and there, sure. But not in this level. If you think a quick shrewd marketing strategy is so ArenaNet is making money, this hurts them in the long run.

If you want ArenaNet to make money, you should support marketing strategies that works for the largest amount of people. You're not convincing anyone with "arenanet has to make money"

[Shirlias.8104]

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Oglaf.1074 said:What people are complaining about is

gambling for premium content

.

Skins now count as "content"?There's plenty to complain about, let's not invent things just to give ANet a hard time.

Erhm yes, it is premium content. Skins are contents, both regular and premium.

Per definition.

Content is

not

synonymous with gameplay such as expansion packs or living world story unlocks you know.

It's not content.Also, you can convert in game currency into shop currency, so it's not premium either.

[Oglaf.1074]

@Shirlias.8104 said:

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Oglaf.1074 said:What people are complaining about is

gambling for premium content

.

Skins now count as "content"?There's plenty to complain about, let's not invent things just to give ANet a hard time.

Erhm yes, it is premium content. Skins are contents, both regular and premium.

Per definition.

Content is

not

synonymous with gameplay such as expansion packs or living world story unlocks you know.

It's not content.Also, you can convert in game currency into shop currency, so it's not premium either.

Models and textures are content - ask any friggin' developer.

Anything you put into a game is per defintion content.

GG.

Now stop derailing this thread away from the important topic at hand.