Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]

[Coulter.2315]

@Drew.1865 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@StonedCat.3518 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:Bringing the "gambling destroys lives" debate into this discussion on mount skin price model is wrong and merely trying to sow two different issues together. The maximum you can possibly "gamble" over your entire life on these mounts is £127.50, this is not a bottomless pit where you mortgage your house. I realise you're trying to pick a topical issue and bring it into the current discussion but you're making an error.

No. There is no such limit. You're assuming that ArenaNet will not add more skins to the pool. I can guarantee that they will making the odds of getting "the one you want" lower.

As for the "gambling destroys lives" debate I would rather people had the right to gamble than surrender that right to someone who knows best, I also think there is a general trend in the world where people will try and take things from you for the safety of others which is unhealthy (people exercising power and feeling virtuous about it should always be feared - zealotry didn't die with religion).

People absolutely have the right to gamble - but then GW2 should be rated M (or even AO) and clearly labelled as a gambling product, not just a video game. Like online poker.

You don't have a leg to stand on claiming this is gambling, it is just extremely expensive and badly designed (leaving an awful taste in the mouth). No casino on earth gives you a jackpot guaranteed after a maximum of 30 rolls. There very clearly is a limit, 30 rolls.

There is buckets wrong with this purchasing model, inventing wrong problems does not help.

It’s gambling.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamble

It is gambling in the same way buying something for £127.50 when it comes with stuff you don't want is gambling, ie. not at all gambling but stupidly expensive and badly designed. Gambling always requires a chance you will lose, you cannot lose if you buy 30 tickets or even the whole bundle "deal."

I really have no interest in defending this awful decision by Anet, but it is not gambling.

[Wraith.1094]

Honestly, all it really comes down to is who's in charge of making the decision. If it's the actual devs, we might have a shot at getting this nonsense fixed. If it's anyone in charge of maximizing profits, we're screwed. It really doesn't matter how many people 'vote with their wallet' or refuse to ever give Anet another dime, because for every 20 of those people there's one whale who will gladly spend 20+ people's share of cash on gems. the majority of the playerbase that isn't even aware of why this business model is so scummy, or simply don't care, so lootboxes remain more profitable and the ill-will relatively easy to ignore.

The obvious method of pricing these mounts would be allowing you to simply pick the one you want with various tiers of gem prices with pretty steep costs for the crazy glowing ones. some would still complain, but many more people would buy them. The problem is that it's almost always more profitable to do lootbox style systems because while drastically less people will buy into it, the ones who do pay more. whether that's whales, people predisposed towards gambling, or those who hate the system but just have to have that one particular thing and will keep pulling the lever until they get it.

[Jordan.5930]

@"Gaile Gray.6029" said:There are a lot of conversations about the mount adoption option that was released today. Many of the comments are redundant, in that they repeat comments made in another thread... sometimes by the same person. :) We want to hear your feedback, but have found that a single feedback thread offers the best opportunity for you to share your thoughts and for us to review it in the context of a wider set of feedback.

So here's a thread into which you're invited to post your thoughts on the subject of the Black Lion Stables Mount Skins.

Perhaps a free mount skin is in order as a sign of good faith? I love this company and I love this game, but it seems many of the fans have been personally offended by this. Please be patient with us, as we are living during a time where loot boxes and microtransactions are rampant, and many gamers feel that mechanisms which rely on chance are meant to exploit them. This is just a suggestion of course, I trust that Anet will know what to do =)

[Canis.7451]

Considering that everything has been merged now and I hope this means that ANET intends to review the feedback gathered here, I will make one more mention of my thoughts on this:

• Price mount skins similar to glider skins. 400 - 800 gem range. You do not sell outfits / gliders for more than 800 gems each, please don't try to take advantage of us with mounts. The lower end of that said range would be simple recolors, while the higher end would be flashier, more elaborately edited skins. Follow the model you used for glider skins-- that is what your playerbase is used to, and probably expected to carry over for mount skins. So far, even considering how they're priced, they all still follow this value model besides the Reforged Warhound (and that is a whole other can of worms). Spooky mounts at 2000g /5 = 400g each. The Mountbox at 12400g /31 = 400g each. I will even do a rough of the theoretical pricing of each skin if they were sold individually..RAPTOR SKINS:Coastal Spiketail (400g) /// Savannah Monitor (400g) /// Canyon Spiketail (500g) /// Striped Tri-horn (500g) /// Flamelander (600g) /// Stormridge (600g)SPRINGER SKINS:Tawny Hare (400g) /// Windy Spot (400g) /// Desert Lop (500g) /// Elonian Jackalope (500g) /// Arctic Jerboa (600g) /// Primal Hare (600g)SKIMMER SKINS:Bright Ringfin (400g) /// Oasis Skate (400g) /// River Moth Wing (500g) /// Spined Longtail (500g) /// Dajkah Lantern (600g) /// Oceanic Ray (600g)JACKAL SKINS:Banded Mystic (400g) /// Polished Stone (400g) /// Crowned Ancient (500g) /// Twin Sands (500g) /// Stardust (600g) /// Pyroclast (600g)GRIFFON SKINS:Highlands Harrier (400g) /// Spotted Sylph (400g) /// Badlands Stalker (500g) /// Clouded Corvus (500g) /// Fire Pinion (600g) /// Starbound (600g)

• Sell them individually. Please, for the love of god. Even gliders in a bundle with say an outfit or a backpiece are sold individually (to my knowledge, not sure about backpieces specifically). Outfits are the same way-- you can still buy them individually even if they're in a bundle. I don't care if you bundle skins for a discount, or to allow people to buy them all at once-- but also offer the option to buy them in singles so those that don't want them all don't have to get skins they wont use.

• Actually add some skins in to be earned through in game content. Like, honestly ANET. I love you. But not everything has to be done through your Gemstore. Even if it was just the really simple recolor skins (like Coastal Spiketail/Tawny Hare/Bright Ringfin/Banded Mystic/Highlands Harrier), at least allow your playerbase to earn something for their mounts via the expansion that, I dunno, brought mounts to begin with? You could give them to the Mount Heart Merchants to sell for trade contracts, give them for completing achievements, events, collections, etc. There is so much you could do with mount skin acquisition and yet the money has you blind.

• If you absolutely must, for whatever kittening reason, must keep this RNG system then please, PLEASE consider making the skins tradable on the TP like other RNG content like dyes, Black Lion Skins (that rely on ticket RNG from chests), etc. Lower the price to something more manageable in the long run-- 100/200g and/or make it so we can limit the selection to a species of our choice per box. but the two bullet points before this are the preferable course of action for the future of this game. You already have Black Lion Chests and that other LWS1 box. You don't need another; BLCs are bad enough as is.

Edit: Now that it isn't 2 AM I've gone back and made some things look nicer, reword others to sound better and add some afterthoughts.

[Halure.2571]

@Coulter.2315 said:

@Drew.1865 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@StonedCat.3518 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:Bringing the "gambling destroys lives" debate into this discussion on mount skin price model is wrong and merely trying to sow two different issues together. The maximum you can possibly "gamble" over your entire life on these mounts is £127.50, this is not a bottomless pit where you mortgage your house. I realise you're trying to pick a topical issue and bring it into the current discussion but you're making an error.

No. There is no such limit. You're assuming that ArenaNet will not add more skins to the pool. I can guarantee that they will making the odds of getting "the one you want" lower.

As for the "gambling destroys lives" debate I would rather people had the right to gamble than surrender that right to someone who knows best, I also think there is a general trend in the world where people will try and take things from you for the safety of others which is unhealthy (people exercising power and feeling virtuous about it should always be feared - zealotry didn't die with religion).

People absolutely have the right to gamble - but then GW2 should be rated M (or even AO) and clearly labelled as a gambling product, not just a video game. Like online poker.

You don't have a leg to stand on claiming this is gambling, it is just extremely expensive and badly designed (leaving an awful taste in the mouth). No casino on earth gives you a jackpot guaranteed after a maximum of 30 rolls. There very clearly is a limit, 30 rolls.

There is buckets wrong with this purchasing model, inventing wrong problems does not help.

It’s gambling.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamble

It is gambling in the same way buying something for £127.50 when it comes with stuff you don't want is gambling, ie. not at all gambling but stupidly expensive and badly designed. Gambling always requires a chance you will lose, you cannot lose if you buy 30 tickets or even the whole bundle "deal."

I really have no interest in defending this awful decision by Anet, but it is not gambling.

Gambling is the wagering of money or something of value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning money or material goods.

The outcome of what you are buying is uncertain until you have only 1 skin left. Gambling is not always as simple as just winning or losing.Also, like, why are you even arguing semantics here? Your "this isn't gambling" doesn't help. If you don't agree with it, say you don't agree, and move on. Stop trying to dismantle the arguments of people who are on the same side as you (mount loot boxes = bad).

[Ohoni.6057]

@Gaile Gray.6029 said:

@Disig.7169 said:

While I agree there was a lot of redundancy, I feel like my post and a few others that were well thought out just got completely buried and utterly negated under a huge heap of people not really reading what others are saying and just throwing kitten into a giant echo chamber.

I'm sorry if you feel that way, Disig. I weighed the options carefully, and seeing so much feedback and so many redundancies, I felt this was the best option. One thing I know is that it's easier to read through this focused thread than to find numerous threads on the same topic, which may be scattered throughout a busy forum. And this version will hopefully encourage individual feedback without repetition (by the same person).

@Gazelle.3128 said:"Many of the comments are redundant, in that they repeat comments made in another thread"I like that term,

redundant

. Just because people share a similar aversion towards the RNG mounts does not make them "repeat comments"..

When I said "redundant," I meant one person saying precisely the same thing in ten threads. If ten people say something, that's just fine. But with ten threads attracting repeated comments

by the same person

the signal-to-noise ratio makes it harder to get an accurate feel for players' opinions.

@Freakshow.1809 said:

@Gazelle.3128 said:"Many of the comments are redundant, in that they repeat comments made in another thread"I like that term,

redundant

. Just because people share a similar aversion towards the RNG mounts does not make them "repeat comments"..

Thank god, I thought I was the only one that was triggered by that.

I was already mad enough about the RNG BS, but now they wanna bury and ignore our complaints in merged echo chambers. Getting real sick of Anets new direction lately.

I assure you that is

not

our intention. Please read up to see more.

P.S. I was setting up accounts and this posted strangely, but I think this is going to be properly set up now. Sorry for any confusion!

We still have yet to get a single comment from anyone actually in charge of any of this, explaining the decision and what ANet plans to do to fix it. Don't let this fire keep burning.

[rwolf.9571]

@Coulter.2315 said:I really have no interest in defending this awful decision by Anet, but it is not gambling.

It's not gambling if you have $120 to burn (Since it's a guaranteed outcome). LolBut for the rest of us who have common sense or a budget it is.

[Coulter.2315]

@Halure.2571 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@Drew.1865 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@StonedCat.3518 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:Bringing the "gambling destroys lives" debate into this discussion on mount skin price model is wrong and merely trying to sow two different issues together. The maximum you can possibly "gamble" over your entire life on these mounts is £127.50, this is not a bottomless pit where you mortgage your house. I realise you're trying to pick a topical issue and bring it into the current discussion but you're making an error.

No. There is no such limit. You're assuming that ArenaNet will not add more skins to the pool. I can guarantee that they will making the odds of getting "the one you want" lower.

As for the "gambling destroys lives" debate I would rather people had the right to gamble than surrender that right to someone who knows best, I also think there is a general trend in the world where people will try and take things from you for the safety of others which is unhealthy (people exercising power and feeling virtuous about it should always be feared - zealotry didn't die with religion).

People absolutely have the right to gamble - but then GW2 should be rated M (or even AO) and clearly labelled as a gambling product, not just a video game. Like online poker.

You don't have a leg to stand on claiming this is gambling, it is just extremely expensive and badly designed (leaving an awful taste in the mouth). No casino on earth gives you a jackpot guaranteed after a maximum of 30 rolls. There very clearly is a limit, 30 rolls.

There is buckets wrong with this purchasing model, inventing wrong problems does not help.

It’s gambling.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamble

It is gambling in the same way buying something for £127.50 when it comes with stuff you don't want is gambling, ie. not at all gambling but stupidly expensive and badly designed. Gambling always requires a chance you will lose, you cannot lose if you buy 30 tickets or even the whole bundle "deal."

I really have no interest in defending this awful decision by Anet, but it is not gambling.

Gambling is the wagering of money or something of value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning money or material goods.

The outcome of what you are buying is uncertain until you have only 1 skin left.

The object is 30 mounts which Anet has valued at £127.50, they will deliver it to you one random piece at a time or you can buy it all at once for a discount. You are just excited about one piece but the product is the whole thing. You aren't winning anything you are just buying a group lot in a random order with the option to stop buying pieces once you get the bits you want.

As I said, I hate it but it is not gambling.

[Nanners.9428]

Since when did anet became a money greedy company?Did other shitty korean cash shop money grabbing concept get into ur head?Did other companies became f2p gave u pressure?I dont buy any of ur skins since none of them are new creatures. If u are going that direction, the game sucks balls in combat compare to other f2p rng games to go that route. Instead of focusing on making content and fixing problems, u became greedy? wow. just wow.I used to have such respect for this company, but it seems u have lost it.A piece of advice before u sink too deep and too low: cash shop focused games can only last for so long they usually do that for a burst of money and die very quickly, due to the lost of playerbase and fans loyalty. U have been very successful for 5 years now with gw2, dont be short eyesighted.

[Drew.1865]

@Coulter.2315 said:

@Halure.2571 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@Drew.1865 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@StonedCat.3518 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:Bringing the "gambling destroys lives" debate into this discussion on mount skin price model is wrong and merely trying to sow two different issues together. The maximum you can possibly "gamble" over your entire life on these mounts is £127.50, this is not a bottomless pit where you mortgage your house. I realise you're trying to pick a topical issue and bring it into the current discussion but you're making an error.

No. There is no such limit. You're assuming that ArenaNet will not add more skins to the pool. I can guarantee that they will making the odds of getting "the one you want" lower.

As for the "gambling destroys lives" debate I would rather people had the right to gamble than surrender that right to someone who knows best, I also think there is a general trend in the world where people will try and take things from you for the safety of others which is unhealthy (people exercising power and feeling virtuous about it should always be feared - zealotry didn't die with religion).

People absolutely have the right to gamble - but then GW2 should be rated M (or even AO) and clearly labelled as a gambling product, not just a video game. Like online poker.

You don't have a leg to stand on claiming this is gambling, it is just extremely expensive and badly designed (leaving an awful taste in the mouth). No casino on earth gives you a jackpot guaranteed after a maximum of 30 rolls. There very clearly is a limit, 30 rolls.

There is buckets wrong with this purchasing model, inventing wrong problems does not help.

It’s gambling.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamble

It is gambling in the same way buying something for £127.50 when it comes with stuff you don't want is gambling, ie. not at all gambling but stupidly expensive and badly designed. Gambling always requires a chance you will lose, you cannot lose if you buy 30 tickets or even the whole bundle "deal."

I really have no interest in defending this awful decision by Anet, but it is not gambling.

Gambling is the wagering of money or something of value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning money or material goods.

The outcome of what you are buying is uncertain until you have only 1 skin left.

The object is 30 mounts which Anet has valued at £127.50, they will deliver it to you one random piece at a time or you can buy it all at once for a discount. You are just excited about one piece but the product is the whole thing. You aren't winning anything you are just buying a group lot in a random order with the option to stop buying pieces once you get the bits you want.

As I said, I hate it but it is not gambling.

It is gambling and you are derailing this thread.

[Halure.2571]

@Coulter.2315 said:

@Halure.2571 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@Drew.1865 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@StonedCat.3518 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:Bringing the "gambling destroys lives" debate into this discussion on mount skin price model is wrong and merely trying to sow two different issues together. The maximum you can possibly "gamble" over your entire life on these mounts is £127.50, this is not a bottomless pit where you mortgage your house. I realise you're trying to pick a topical issue and bring it into the current discussion but you're making an error.

No. There is no such limit. You're assuming that ArenaNet will not add more skins to the pool. I can guarantee that they will making the odds of getting "the one you want" lower.

As for the "gambling destroys lives" debate I would rather people had the right to gamble than surrender that right to someone who knows best, I also think there is a general trend in the world where people will try and take things from you for the safety of others which is unhealthy (people exercising power and feeling virtuous about it should always be feared - zealotry didn't die with religion).

People absolutely have the right to gamble - but then GW2 should be rated M (or even AO) and clearly labelled as a gambling product, not just a video game. Like online poker.

You don't have a leg to stand on claiming this is gambling, it is just extremely expensive and badly designed (leaving an awful taste in the mouth). No casino on earth gives you a jackpot guaranteed after a maximum of 30 rolls. There very clearly is a limit, 30 rolls.

There is buckets wrong with this purchasing model, inventing wrong problems does not help.

It’s gambling.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamble

It is gambling in the same way buying something for £127.50 when it comes with stuff you don't want is gambling, ie. not at all gambling but stupidly expensive and badly designed. Gambling always requires a chance you will lose, you cannot lose if you buy 30 tickets or even the whole bundle "deal."

I really have no interest in defending this awful decision by Anet, but it is not gambling.

Gambling is the wagering of money or something of value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning money or material goods.

The outcome of what you are buying is uncertain until you have only 1 skin left.

The object is 30 mounts which Anet has valued at £127.50, they will deliver it to you one random piece at a time or you can buy it all at once for a discount. You are just excited about one piece but the product is the whole thing. You aren't winning anything you are just buying a group lot in a random order with the option to stop buying pieces once you get the bits you want.

As I said, I hate it but it is not gambling.

I edited my last post, but basically why don't you stop arguing S E M A N T I C S with people who are on the same side as you. All you are doing is arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Yasi.9065]

I wasnt really going to post anything, because my interest in mountskins is exactly zero. Except they are giving me eye-cancer so much, Im starting to avoid LA, Aerodrome and openworld squads just so I dont quit the game entirely.

But the direction the gemshop has taken in the last few months is - put mildly - worrisome. Im one of those people that spends around 10 Euro each month on gems to support the game. I could just convert gold to gems instead if I really wanted to, but well... its my way to show appreciation for good graphics.If theres not a current skin/item I want, then I usually spend that money on black lion keys for the fun of it. Having black lion chest only skins as rare drops was already getting a bit weird, but hey, at least you can reasonably get enough keys to get every 2nd or so of those skins ingame. If you dont have really really bad luck.

And thats just the thing. Putting money and RNG in the same pot makes for disgruntled customers. Always. Its never gonna be satisfying and in the long run, the gemshop will loose out.

Because for every one person that spends the needed RNG frustration and money for the one skin they want... one or more people will just leave the game behind.It might bring a short influx of money to Anet, but it will be ultimately the death of it. To say it as directly as possible: the mount stuff going on? Thats EA tactics. And how do EA games usually end up? Correct, they are sequeled to death to squeeze the last bit out of them. Id hate to see the last reasonably good mmo go down that way.

So, Dear Anet. If you love your game, dont go down that road.

Un-RNG all skins. Increase gold to gem conversion to incentivize spending money over converting gold to gems. Increase item rewards, decrease cash rewards.

Thats a healthy way to keep the gemshop alive.

Forcing people to buy 29 mountskins they hate just for 1 skin they love, thats just wrong.

[Jordan.5930]

@Moonlit.6421 said:

@Jordan.5930 said:

@Moonlit.6421 said:If the worst problem you have is that unrequired visual items are not easily available to you than I think you'll be fine lol. I don't see why everyone's throwing such a fit over this, you don't need these things to enjoy the game and plenty of f2p players have fun here with minimal stuff. Don't get me wrong I'm an altoholic with a passion for fashion but I recognize and accept there's cool items out there I may never get, but that doesn't mean there aren't a ton of cool items I can acquire. Make the most of it and have fun, if you can't do that then maybe you just need to take a break from this game and try out some others.

At what point did people start forgetting this is an MMORPG? Emphasis on RPG. If you want to create an immersive setting, a roleplay setting if you will, where you play as the mighty warrior, the wise and powerful elementalist, the stealthy thief, cosmetic options are key to that. Your armor, your mount, what sword you wield or magic you use is paramount to that experience. We've all had the experience when we beat the boss and said holy kitten, look at this kitten new sword that I got, that's what makes a game exciting, the sense of reward, and now that's being taken away because if I want a cool mount I can just pay $25 for it. Guild Wars 2 has always tried to stick with the notion of "play your way". I'm the kitten commander and slayer of two dragons in my personal story, so why the hell would I have the same kitten mount as every other common person in the game. My mount should be unique and special to ME, and now because I can't afford to buy $40 worth of mount skins you're telling me I just have to live with it? Well, screw you. Yes, I'll make a fit, yes this affects my gameplay experience and the experience of the player base as a whole, no I will not sit down and just take it.

I'm actually quite aware of this point. As I said in my post I'm quite fond of cosmetics myself in this game, and at this current moment I have 40 characters each with their own unique looks and back stories and more I'm planning in the works once I can save up for some more character slots. I've sent more money on this game than I can keep track of and even went far enough to buy I think it was 97 bl keys to get the dang zaishen helm skin to use on just one of my characters because it looked cool and it fit and gosh darn it I wanted it. All my characters have their own little back stories that I enjoy and personalities I keep in mind when I play them, and I'm fairly attached to them all. I'm well aware of the part it plays and as I said in my second post, I'm not overly fond of the system Anet decided on for their acquisition. However, no matter how much I agree with you or think it would be better your way, "pitching a fit" and whining about it makes me loathe to agree with you and support your argument. It's like if I saw a protests on the street and I maybe agreed with their cause, but the main guy leading the protest is stomping around, getting in people's faces and yelling, and acting like some angry man child. I'm not gonna go pair up with that. If I see a similar petition down the road though, and people can actually control themselves and keep level headed, then there's no reason for me not to voice my agreement with them. That's my personal take on it, make of it what you will.

(Also just noticed this thread got merged into oblivion lol)

Haha yeah, super merged. Anyways, when I say I will "make a fit" that's not to be taken literally. All I meant was that if you're passionate enough about something, maybe we can see some actual change. This merged thread is evidence of that, and a step in the right direction.

[Coulter.2315]

@Drew.1865 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@Halure.2571 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@Drew.1865 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:

@StonedCat.3518 said:

@Coulter.2315 said:Bringing the "gambling destroys lives" debate into this discussion on mount skin price model is wrong and merely trying to sow two different issues together. The maximum you can possibly "gamble" over your entire life on these mounts is £127.50, this is not a bottomless pit where you mortgage your house. I realise you're trying to pick a topical issue and bring it into the current discussion but you're making an error.

No. There is no such limit. You're assuming that ArenaNet will not add more skins to the pool. I can guarantee that they will making the odds of getting "the one you want" lower.

As for the "gambling destroys lives" debate I would rather people had the right to gamble than surrender that right to someone who knows best, I also think there is a general trend in the world where people will try and take things from you for the safety of others which is unhealthy (people exercising power and feeling virtuous about it should always be feared - zealotry didn't die with religion).

People absolutely have the right to gamble - but then GW2 should be rated M (or even AO) and clearly labelled as a gambling product, not just a video game. Like online poker.

You don't have a leg to stand on claiming this is gambling, it is just extremely expensive and badly designed (leaving an awful taste in the mouth). No casino on earth gives you a jackpot guaranteed after a maximum of 30 rolls. There very clearly is a limit, 30 rolls.

There is buckets wrong with this purchasing model, inventing wrong problems does not help.

It’s gambling.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamble

It is gambling in the same way buying something for £127.50 when it comes with stuff you don't want is gambling, ie. not at all gambling but stupidly expensive and badly designed. Gambling always requires a chance you will lose, you cannot lose if you buy 30 tickets or even the whole bundle "deal."

I really have no interest in defending this awful decision by Anet, but it is not gambling.

Gambling is the wagering of money or something of value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning money or material goods.

The outcome of what you are buying is uncertain until you have only 1 skin left.

The object is 30 mounts which Anet has valued at £127.50, they will deliver it to you one random piece at a time or you can buy it all at once for a discount. You are just excited about one piece but the product is the whole thing. You aren't winning anything you are just buying a group lot in a random order with the option to stop buying pieces once you get the bits you want.

As I said, I hate it but it is not gambling.

It is gambling and you are derailing this thread.

I didn't bring up gambling, other people did, complaining about "derailing" the thread when you are arguing with me is ridiculous (especially since the OP of the thread I was speaking in, before the merge, specifically was talking about gambling addiction).

The model is gross, they need to change it but it is not gambling (you can prove it by buying the set unlock or 30 tickets).

[Hevoskuuri.3891]

+1 on abandoning the rng system. I've always appreciated the gem store for the fact that the pricing is very fair and you always know what you're getting for your euros. With the exception of BLCs of course, but I've accepted those too, because of the occasional free key drops and not locking anything absolutely must-have behind them.

The mount adopting licences were a nice idea on paper, however it's a bad system overall. I don't know anything about the most lucrative marketing forms etc. but RNG lootboxes generally give out a very bad image of the game/company, and the public majority opinion on them is usually negative.

Countless players here would love to pick and buy a few skins right away, for even more than 400 gems, but because there's gambling involved, they'll skip. As much as I like the new skins, that includes me as well.

[Manasa Devi.7958]

There are 36 alternative mount skins in the store so far. Yet, I can only buy one of them straight up as a single purchase. One that I don't want. This is an extremely unaccommodating system, no two ways about it.

[Frostfang.5109]

Awsome! Just give me the option to CHOOSE wich one i wanna pick for that price.

[Zeivu.3615]

@DakotaCoty.5721 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@DakotaCoty.5721 said:The Black Lion Stables are pleased to open their doors and offer new mount adoption licenses. Each license will allow you to claim a random mount skin from the Black Lion Stables, and they are available in the Style category of the Gem Store for 400 gems each.

If this trend continues I won't fund this game anymore, simple as that. This is stupid.

The math:400 * 31 = 12,400 gems.

How is that different from spending 100 gems for a chance at an exclusive dye]? Or 80 gems (in bulks) for BL keys, with a random chance of skins? Like any lotto, play if you think you'll get lucky, otherwise hang tight and buy the specific skin(s) you want when they show up at a discount later.

Those dyes can be bought on the TP and flooded quite nicely with supply. Mount skins cannot be bought on the TP.

Hah. With the dyes, unless you have a birthday, you don't have a say in what you get. 90% of the time it is crap or is something you already have. There is no RNG damage control with dyes. With the mount adoption, you will always get something you don't have.

[Meowatatonic.1738]

I am beer'd and ready to type. (no repeats eh?)

I can say without a doubt that you already have your answer. The gambling-loot-box system needs to go. I already rambled-off a few ideas about how this could be done and they were (admittedly) a tad over complicated. Easiest way to do this would be to immediately refund everyone's purchase. Alter the mount system so that the player can choose the mount they want when they buy an adoption ticket. Keep the price of the adoption ticket at 400 gems and then roll the system back out.

My beer isn't even finished...guess I'll go get my daily and say gross things in mapchat.

[Alcatraz.9206]

I find 2000 gems for a limited time skin a bit too expensive. 400 Gems for a new skin of mounts is acceptable, however, the RNG system indeed makes it feel like you just spent gems on one of the most tricky lottery systems available to mankind. Mayby the vending of mount skins on the Trading Post could be a solution (so that people can buy and sell mount skins like Weapon skins are being marketed). In general the skins are very appealing and worth the full 400 gems, though not being able to choose which skin you are paying for is really stopping lots of people from buying it it seems.

[Gambino.2109]

Absolutely hardly any positive thing to be said about this..

It's a betrayal, forcing willing paying customers to gamble for the things that interest them.. why would you do this. To those blind saying you aren't forced to do anything, many of us are willing to purchase with the intention of keeping the game going, but even the most dense person can see this is a sham.

I'm not spending a dime on this, going over the top with ridiculous prices and rng

[Solion.9658]

Okay .. Anet, let's take a step back. This was a terrible , terrible idea. Time to rethink it and allow us to buy the sets we want. This possible 9600 gems to get the skin I want is just beyond the pale. Your base, people like me who was in since the beta are about to throw up our hands knowing you have taken the path to the dark side.

The fact I have to buy skins I don't want to possibly get the ones i do is a horrible sales model , Who do you think you are? .. Comcast? ... EA ?

So basically everyone of the forums is pretty much in agreement. You can have some of our money or none. I will not spend another dime till you fix this.

[Vegeta.2563]

Let us choose the skin we want for say 700 gems each.. but still offer all 30 for 9,600 gems.

Also 2000 gems for 1 mount skin? That seems like a bit much don't you think?

[Nanners.9428]

The business module is called micro transaction it used to consist of 2$, 5$ or upto 10$ stuff, but look at now the amount and added rng elements. this is just typical greedy money sucker behaviour.

i know i can choose not to spend money at all infact i wont cos none of these are new designs but its the fact that u are ez influenced by other companies going that route, it just makes u lose the credit i've given u over the years.

it takes one time, only one time, to drive away loyal players. other f2p games with heavy cash shop focus at least they have the combat system and vertical progression to back up and drive players but gw2 is virtually unplayable for me since the combat is shit, i've been using ICM from day 1 and later action camera, i never enjoyed playing gw2 but i have stayed for years and spent thousands of pound in the gemstore so far. check transaction history. why? cos i trusted this company, u had a high standards and its been a successful franchise since gw1, its the longivity and listening to player feedback attitude. Now u are slowly loosing this credibility bwcause of this act of greed. so turn back now before u loose more than what u gain.

[Sirius.4510]

I've generally avoided paying for RNG-based boxes (e.g. Black Lion chests) like the plague. The only reason I'm even considering these skins is because you can guarantee you get the skins you want - you just might have to pay over $100 to do it.

That price is too high to be particularly comfortable, and given how controversial this system has proven, I figure I'm best served waiting to see ArenaNet's response to the feedback before I do anything, so that's what I'll do. If the cost were, say, 100 gems per license, it wouldn't bother me at all - because the "guaranteed" cost is then somewhere in the $30 ballpark, which is a lot less exploitative.

The thing that makes me feel even worse about this is, it doesn't take a clairvoyant to see that this isn't the last batch of skins we're going to get. Can you imagine if another batch of 30 RNG skins came out six months from now at the same kind of cost?

There has to be a better, more customer-friendly, way to do this.