Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]

[Tekoneiric.6817]

@Ashantara.8731 said:If anyone is interested, Belgium just ruled that virtual loot boxes are indeed gambling:http://www.pcgamer.com/belgium-says-loot-boxes-are-gambling-wants-them-banned-in-europe/

I wonder how that's going to impact GW2 and this issue.

[Zero Day.2594]

https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/22/belgium-moves-to-ban-star-wars-battlefront-2-style-loot-boxes/

State of Hawaii is also looking into loot boxes.

---

Again, it just strikes me insane that ANet/NCSoft would follow suite with other companies on loot boxes when everyone can see a shit storm just brewing.

Some ANet/NCSoft employee: "Sir, I don't think we should release the mount adoption license at this time - there's a lot of negative press surrounding loot boxes, RNG, and gambling... We might get caught in the shit storm."

Decision maker at ANet/NCSoft: "Nah, fuck it. Release em - YOLO"

[Lithril Ashwalker.6230]

inb4 keyfarming UNNERFED - i still await anets comments on these countries banning them

[Kelian Ravenwood.4130]

@GreyWolf.8670 said:

@Kelian Ravenwood.4130 said:

@Penarddun.6827 said:

A lot of the backlash could have been avoided if there were non-RNG and non-Gemstore ways to obtain mount skins. Like as a reward at the end of a raid, or the end of the PoF storyline, or for completing a challenging achievement. It's the extreme one-sided-ness of 30 mounts being dumped into the gemstore, all at once, behind high paywalls and/or rng that has caused this effect.

Let's be honest here... if there were also mounts offered through questing, achievements or other methods, we would hear an outcry because "that's not the mount I want" or "only the good-looking mounts are behind the RNG; the ones available from achievements are terrible/everyone has them and I want my mount to be unique". There is a mount available outside of RNG, but the complaint is that it is "too expensive" despite the multitude of gamers stating they would pay more for good-looking mount skins (for the record, I think 2000 gems for a mount skin is too expensive as well, and that's why I didn't buy it).

That all being said, I have seen a few posts where someone decided this was the end of their time with GW2; I don't agree, but the poster kept everything civil and wished ArenaNet well. I think this is the kind of post we should all try to emulate, if we feel this way.@GreyWolf.8670 said:

@Kelian Ravenwood.4130 said:

@Djinn.9245 said:

@Kelian Ravenwood.4130 said:

@Djinn.9245 said:

@Kalibri.5861 said:

@jguerin.8261 said:I want you PvPers (poster versus posters -- get it?! ha ha) to know that YOU.ARE.NOT.EMPLOYED.BY.ANET: You were never in that meeting (and you never will be) where this was first brought up, never in that meeting when $$$ and RNG were discussed and you were

never

there at the meeting when this was given the go.

This is a big part of the problem, though. ArenaNet doesn't communicate. A lot of this noise could have been avoided if they'd discussed it with us to begin with, and there are many ways in which gaming companies can do that. A development diary or roadmap which said, "Hey guys, we have a financial need to implement this system because the game isn't sustainable, and here you can see the costs versus revenues," or whatever would have gone a very long way to smoothing this out before it became the disaster that it was bound to be.

The problem is that there is no "need" to implement manipulative systems. The vast majority of companies simply sell products that people want. If people don't want their product, they either change their product until people want it or the company fails. Introducing manipulative systems is a CHOICE (based on low standards IMO), not a NEED.

Someone mentioned in another thread (and I would give credit here if I could find it) some other examples of real-world RNG, and my favorite is McDonald's Monopoly. This is purely subjective data, but many people I know wait for the Monopoly tickets to be attached to large sodas and fries for a chance to win, and McDonald's sells a lot more and their revenues skyrocket during this time (check out the Income Statements for details).

That isn't comparable. With McDonalds Lottery you get exactly what you pay for, there is no mystery as to what you are going to get.

What would be comparable to what Anet did is if McDonalds sold a "sandwich gamble box". You pay $2.50 and get one sandwich. It could be a Quarter Pounder with Cheese, a Filet o Fish, a Bacon Cheeseburger, a regular Hamburger, a Chicken Sandwich, etc. Of course each of these sandwiches is actually worth different amounts of money - some quite a bit less than $2.50, some quite a bit more. Some sandwiches you won't like, and some you would particularly want. But you don't get a choice. McDonalds only sells it's sandwiches this way.

How long do you think McDonalds would last if they did this btw? LOL

A little late in response (sorry, busy), but keep in mind I am not suggesting that McDonald's food items are RNG, just the Monopoly ticket. This is relevant because many people do not purchase the same volume from McDonald's until the Monopoly "game" comes out, suggesting that the Monopoly game tickets are what are driving the revenue. People would certainly not pay for a Big Mac and accept a Fish Filet, but I've seen people buy an extra meal to get an extra three tickets, despite the fact the tickets are a lottery.

McDonalds Monopoly isn't a lottery. You do not have to pay for the game pieces. They have to give them to you if you ask for them.

If you're curious how well that law works, go into any business that is advertising game pieces for a chance to win a prize and ask for 10,000 tokens/pieces/chances. The best you can hope for is an invitation to send 10,000 SASEs to their corporate headquarters.

Part of me (the stubborn, poetic-justice-yearning side) hopes that everyone that wishes to remove RNG from games gets what they seem to want... all F2P games would be gone (startups can only fund so far), progression in games would follow straight-line method and offer little-to-no variety, all players would have the optimal equipment, and we would have a chance to move on to the next item to complain about. I'm not a fan of lootboxes (who is?), but I have the choice to not participate, as does everyone else. If you feel so strongly, don't give them your money. If enough feel that way, the game will have to find other methods of creating revenue to support their servers, staff and software, or they will simply end the game.

I'm in favor of self-regulation in this case.

That's a far-fetched stretch, isn't it? 10,000 pieces? You're not even trying to put up a defensible argument so there's no point in replying.

If using an extreme example to illustrate the point is not a defensible method of arguing, I would expect you to take issue with many of the conversations here.

As you are not willing to defend your point of view and dismiss my argument out of hand, there's no point in replying (unless you wish to have the last word, which I will accept). Enjoy your time in Tyria! :)

[Kelian Ravenwood.4130]

@Ashantara.8731 said:If anyone is interested, Belgium just ruled that virtual loot boxes are indeed gambling:http://www.pcgamer.com/belgium-says-loot-boxes-are-gambling-wants-them-banned-in-europe/

I'm curious what effect (if any) this will have on the overall game economy and gaming options in Belgium... might provide a litmus test for the rest of the world if there is great success or disaster...

[Kelian Ravenwood.4130]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@"Kelian Ravenwood.4130" said:Let's be honest here... if there were also mounts offered through questing, achievements or other methods, we would hear an outcry because "that's not the mount I want" or "only the good-looking mounts are behind the RNG; the ones available from achievements are terrible/everyone has them and I want my mount to be unique".

Not really on the former, what they choose to offer through content is what they offer, and everyone seems ok with that. For the latter it might end up being a somewhat valid complaint, but it probably wouldn't be a big deal. It certainly wouldn't have received the

degree

of action that the current situation has. Every situation will receive some level of complaint, that does not mean that all complaint is invalid.I agree that the level of complaint would be less if there were no RNG skins; but disagree that everyone is OK with what is offered through content. Before map chat was filled with complaints regarding the mount skins, it was filled with complaints regarding the gem costs for the "cool" armor and outfits (this did abate upon PoF's release, as many were appreciating the beauty and solid gameplay). Even if ANet gave everyone exactly what they wanted, people will complain. Seems to be our nature, sadly. If there was a beautiful, incredible mount skin for raptors (the first mount) available through easy play content, everyone could have it, but very few would want it...

There is a mount available outside of RNG, but the complaint is that it is "too expensive" despite the multitude of gamers stating they would pay more for good-looking mount skins (for the record, I think 2000 gems for a mount skin is too expensive as well, and that's why I didn't buy it).

It also only applied to a single mount out of five, and had a specific design that was not to everyone's tastes. Let's be clear, havign reasonable alternatives to the Dirty Thirty would have slightly defused the situation, but there would still be a major problem here, which was that the 30 skins in the RNG box could ONLY be acquired through RNG. That issue would have remained whether there were six other skins or sixty.Mounts have only been available for two months, so I don't see a problem with only a single mount receiving a purchasable skin so far. I realize the addition of the RNG licenses probably pushed many to ignore the timeline, but we aren't talking about years.I don't feel all content should be available to all players; I will never have all of the Black Lion Chest items because I don't want to pay for them. Part of the fun of the game (imho) is deciding how I want to spend my money (and therefore my time). There are weapon skins I won't spend the time to get; that doesn't mean ANet is required to give me another method. If I really, really want a particular mount skin, I can take my chances or just wait until something better gets released for direct purchase or they open the mount adoption license skins for direct purchase (may be a long wait, but I have the choice).

Part of me (the stubborn, poetic-justice-yearning side) hopes that everyone that wishes to remove RNG from games gets what they seem to want... all F2P games would be gone (startups can only fund so far), p

RNG is not necessary to fund F2P games. You

can

sell customers the product they want at a fair price. It worked for Walmart.Be careful using WalMart as an example of ethical business practice (if that was your intent); while they have done some wonderful things, they've also engaged in some shady stuff as well. Like most companies.F2P games are primarily funded through advertisements (another big complaint by the gaming community) and microtransactions, many being RNG. Not all, surely; you can create a product that is so desired by the players that you don't need to charge anything at all if people are willing to donate money through startups or open requests for support. That said, those examples are few when compared to the microtransaction model, and that model produces the most revenue through chance and competition, hence RNG.

If you feel so strongly, don't give them your money.

I am doing that. I am also complaining about it, loudly and often, in the hopes that they will change the policy, so that I

can

give them my money.

I can do both things.I applaud your decisions to speak your mind with both your voice and your money; just be aware that everyone else has the same freedom, including ANet.

If enough feel that way, the game will have to find other methods of creating revenue to support their servers, staff and software, or they will simply end the game.

The problem is, we're living in the age of "post Citzens United" gaming. The "vote with your wallet" no longer applies, because ten people withholding $10 is less important than one person willing to pay $120. We can't just withhold our money and hope for the best, because whales gonna whale.

A lot of people here are blaming "whales" for purchasing so much and invalidating their choice not to spend; keep in mind the "whales" are free to do that if they wish. To be honest, if the "whales" are going to buy everything anyway, then you are making a difference by not buying because that revenue was anticipated anyway. For example, if I always spend $300/month buying whatever comes out on GW2, then the release of the mount adoption license will result in me spending no more or less than if something else costing the same amount was released (I may not be explaining this very well, so if I lost you I apologize). I believe this is what people are referring to as "whales"; I don't do this, so I can't say definitively. What I can say is that net income is a zero sum game when it comes down to the final totals, and each person who does not spend $5 - $120 on a potential money maker does make a difference. It is up to ANet (or whoever is running the Budgeting and Accounting) to determine if that difference is consequential or not, but I promise you that they notice.

Solutions won't come from making exploitative practices unprofitable. Solutions either have to come from convincing companies to not sell their souls to achieve maximum profits when reasonable profits can be accomplished while also making their customers happy, OR by appealing to outside agencies to impose rules that limit a company's ability to embrace the dark side.

"Vote with your wallet" is dead, and has been for a while now.

While net income is a zero sum game, potential revenue is not. Whether good or bad, capitalism functions on the basis of greed, so to ask a company to make only reasonable profits (a term that is very debatable) is not realistic. If a better source of revenue is presented, a company will be hard-pressed to not investigate it at the very least. Of course, there are definite lines that cannot be crossed; you can't steal everyone's car in the parking lot to sell at a fence and expect to be considered an ethical business. I don't believe RNG crosses that line, especially when it comes to cosmetic items. I also don't believe an outside agency restricting the business potential revenue streams in the manners suggested in this forum is the answer either; can you imagine if this happened irl? You would have government agents arrive at a church selling 50/50 tickets, confiscating all proceeds (as evidence...) and arresting the minister for trying to build a new roof.

I also realize this game is sold to Teens as per its ESRB rating; as a parent of a 22 and a 19 year-old, I feel the responsible to safeguard our children from any potential harm is ours. When my son spent $20 on a Facebook game as a teenager, I never blamed the game; it was my job to explain why the behavior needed to be adjusted to my son. I apparently had failed in that life lesson up to that point, so I needed to correct it. I also ensured it would not happen again (i.e. I restricted his access). He eventually discovered that, while the possibility of winning something was enticing, it wasn't worth what he was spending; he learned how to act responsibly. We, as adults, are responsible for our actions; we are also responsible for our children's actions. Putting a government agency in control of how my child learns to be an adult is very scary imho.

I appreciate your responses and your point of view. If you decide to continue your gameplay, enjoy your time in Tyria!

[Ohoni.6057]

@"Kelian Ravenwood.4130" said:Even if ANet gave everyone exactly what they wanted, people will complain. Seems to be our nature, sadly.

This is true, but also pointless. Yes, "people will complain." That doesn't mean that complaints should not be taken seriously. The goal for a company should never be to get complaints down to zero, because as you point out, that will never happen. The goal is to actually listen to complaints, and if they are valid, to correct them. The goal of a good company is to reduce the complaints as much as they can while maintaining their bottom line. If they can make more players happy by going one way rather than the other, then they should try to do so.

If there was a beautiful, incredible mount skin for raptors (the first mount) available through easy play content, everyone could have it, but very few would want it...

Eh, I disagree. There are some people that chase things because they are rare, there are others that chase things for what they are. I lean more towards the latter category. Yes, there are some people who would only value a thing if it were expensive or required a significant undertaking to unlock it, but plenty of others would value it even if it were pretty casual.

One of the issues with the default mounts is that they only had one dye channel, when clearly they could have had more. My position from the moment this became apparent, which I still stand by, is that I would have been fine with them releasing basically identical skins onto the mount store (which they did), only I'd have had them as very cheap skins, like 100-250 gems, tops. The idea there is that it would be chump change enough that pretty much any player could be like "sure, why not?" to get a skin on a mount they used often enough, but even so it would get players into the store, it would be great for getting players to loosen their wallets, like a doorbuster deal. Win/win, so far as I can see. Then there could be fancier skins at higher prices, but again, all fair, direct purchases, not gambling.

Mounts have only been available for two months, so I don't see a problem with only a single mount receiving a purchasable skin so far. I realize the addition of the RNG licenses probably pushed many to ignore the timeline, but we aren't talking about years.

They have made thirty six skins so far, only one of which is available as a single skin. Personally, I would have made sure that at least one of each mounts' skins was available at a reasonable price before doing any of the others. If they wanted to release "legendary quality" skins like the Warbeast at a slower rate, that's fine, but they should have covered their bases first.

I don't feel all content should be available to all players; I will never have all of the Black Lion Chest items because I don't want to pay for them. Part of the fun of the game (imho) is deciding how I want to spend my money (and therefore my time).

I don't see how your way is contradictory to mine. Currently, to get all 30 skins costs over $120. The only way to do this is to gamble until you have all of them. If they'd instead released the skins individually at fair prices then that would remain true, more or less, and you would still be able to "decide how I want to spend your money," but players who had no interest in gambling could also "decide how they want to spend their money" in a non-gambling fashion.

Be careful using WalMart as an example of ethical business practice (if that was your intent); while they have done some wonderful things, they've also engaged in some shady stuff as well. Like most companies.

I'm not highlighting their ethics, I'm highlighting their success in business, as a fairly ubiquitous brand. I'm pointing out that it's possible for a business to be profitable without "needing" to engage in gambling to do so. You just offer products that customers want at an affordable price.

That said, those examples are few when compared to the microtransaction model, and that model produces the most revenue through chance and competition, hence RNG.

Gambling is profitable, as is drug dealing, or any other vice-based "industry." That should be a surprise to no one. That does not mean that it's the only way to turn a profit.

I also don't believe an outside agency restricting the business potential revenue streams in the manners suggested in this forum is the answer either; can you imagine if this happened irl? You would have government agents arrive at a church selling 50/50 tickets, confiscating all proceeds (as evidence...) and arresting the minister for trying to build a new roof.

There are already state and federal regulations on gaming which apply to many varieties of gambling. This is why certain promotional giveaways say "void in

1. ," or why you can receive McDonalds Monopoly pieces for free. Even churches have to abide by those regulations, although in some cases there are exemptions for non-profits. The point is, you

can impose reasonable limitations on what gambling a company can and cannot do, and I do believe that's the only hope the games industry has going forward, because if left to their own devices I think that they will pursue "a better source of revenue," and that will be sources that psychologically exploit their most vulnerable customers at the expense of millions of others who just want to have fun playing a game. You're right that this is their fiduciary responsibility, if they have the option to legally do so, which is why we need legal safeguards to prevent them from doing so.

[Kelian Ravenwood.4130]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@"Kelian Ravenwood.4130" said:Even if ANet gave everyone exactly what they wanted, people will complain. Seems to be our nature, sadly.

This is true, but also pointless. Yes, "people will complain." That doesn't mean that complaints should not be taken seriously. The goal for a company should never be to get complaints down to zero, because as you point out, that will never happen. The goal is to actually

listen

to complaints, and if they are valid, to correct them. The goal of a good company is to

reduce

the complaints as much as they can while maintaining their bottom line. If they can make

more

players happy by going one way rather than the other, then they should try to do so.I guess the disagreement here is that I believe ANet is listening to the complaints; how they choose to respond doesn't seem to be satisfying to the posters on this forum, and so others claim ANet is just ignoring them. I think they should also try to make as many players happy as possible, but as you pointed out they must also maintain the bottom line, and unfortunately those two goals are often mutually exclusive, particularly in this case as we do not know if ANet is meeting their profit goals or not.

If there was a beautiful, incredible mount skin for raptors (the first mount) available through easy play content, everyone could have it, but very few would want it...

Eh, I disagree. There are some people that chase things because they are rare, there are others that chase things for what they are. I lean more towards the latter category. Yes, there are some people who would only value a thing if it were expensive or required a significant undertaking to unlock it, but plenty of others would value it even if it were pretty casual.I tend to fall into the same category as you, but it has been my own personal experience (very subjective data here) that I am in a minority regarding this. I think the Flame Blade skin for the sword is awesome and often have it equipped on my characters with exotic or legendary equipment, and many players have asked me "what's wrong with your sword?"

One of the issues with the default mounts is that they only had one dye channel, when clearly they could have had more. My position from the moment this became apparent, which I still stand by, is that I would have been fine with them releasing basically identical skins onto the mount store (which they did), only I'd have had them as very cheap skins, like 100-250 gems, tops. The idea there is that it would be chump change enough that pretty much any player could be like "sure, why not?" to get a skin on a mount they used often enough, but even so it would get players into the store, it would be great for getting players to loosen their wallets, like a doorbuster deal. Win/win, so far as I can see. Then there could be fancier skins at higher prices, but again, all fair, direct purchases, not gambling.I completely agree about the dye channels; it was (imho) the greatest incentive to buy a license. Despite what you received, one of your mounts (unless you don't have the griffon, which I agree should not be part of the license options if you don't own the mount) could be customized to a greater degree. I like the idea you proposed here and hopefully ANet can incorporate that in the future.

I don't feel all content should be available to all players; I will never have all of the Black Lion Chest items because I don't want to pay for them. Part of the fun of the game (imho) is deciding how I want to spend my money (and therefore my time).

I don't see how your way is contradictory to mine. Currently, to get all 30 skins costs over $120. The only way to do this is to gamble until you have all of them. If they'd instead released the skins individually at fair prices then that would remain true, more or less, and you would still be able to "decide how I want to spend your money," but players who had no interest in gambling could

also

"decide how they want to spend their money" in a non-gambling fashion.It's not really contradicting, it's just addressing an often cited complaint; that someone cannot get the item they want because it is not available through content. I apologize if I wasn't clear.

Be careful using WalMart as an example of ethical business practice (if that was your intent); while they have done some wonderful things, they've also engaged in some shady stuff as well. Like most companies.

I'm not highlighting their ethics, I'm highlighting their success in business, as a fairly ubiquitous brand. I'm pointing out that it's possible for a business to be profitable without "needing" to engage in gambling to do so. You just offer products that customers want at an affordable price.WalMart is retailing product in a market where identical products exist; the only vendors you can buy an item for Guild Wars 2 from is either ANet or a player selling the item, both regulated by ANet. My point here is that ANet's product exists in a vacuum, so there is no pressure (except customer's willingness to buy) to meet market price. WalMart has been highly successful cutting the price of their items as much as possible, but that draws existing business from other vendors; ANet cannot do that as there is no outside existing business to draw from. While they may entice some players to buy with sales, their current sale opportunities is directly relative to their player base. I could be wrong, but I don't believe anyone starts playing Guild Wars 2 because of the cost of their gem store items...WalMart also offers necessities (or pretty close to necessities), meaning that there will always be a population that needs to buy the item from someone. GW2 does not have that built-in incentive; the game is exactly that: a game. Nothing is necessary in Guild Wars 2 for survival. I think it would be more appropriate to compare companies who are involved with non-necessities; it's one reason why I think McDonald's is more applicable. While it is food, I don't believe anyone would suggest it's necessary for survival.

That said, those examples are few when compared to the microtransaction model, and that model produces the most revenue through chance and competition, hence RNG.

Gambling is profitable, as is drug dealing, or any other vice-based "industry." That should be a surprise to no one. That does not mean that it's the

only

way to turn a profit.I think this would just be a disagreement; I would not compare mount skins behind RNG to drug dealing, prostitution or other vice-based "industry". IMO that's like comparing coffee to cocaine (which would actually be closer to reality). Skins are based on a desire to have something and cannot sustain your or your loved-one's existence; I think one of the basic differences between this example of RNG and gambling is that money won from gambling can actually pay for basic needs, where a mount skin will not. This increases the inherent damage caused by gambling, because you may see it as your one chance to survive. I would recommend anyone who feels their existence is predicated on owning a particular mount skin seek professional attention, as they may have OCD (this is not a joke; I wouldn't joke about such a debilitating condition).

I also don't believe an outside agency restricting the business potential revenue streams in the manners suggested in this forum is the answer either; can you imagine if this happened irl? You would have government agents arrive at a church selling 50/50 tickets, confiscating all proceeds (as evidence...) and arresting the minister for trying to build a new roof.

There are already state and federal regulations on gaming which apply to many varieties of gambling. This is why certain promotional giveaways say "void in

," or why you can receive McDonalds Monopoly pieces for free. Even churches have to abide by those regulations, although in some cases there are exemptions for non-profits. The point is, you

can

impose reasonable limitations on what gambling a company can and cannot do, and I do believe that's the only hope the games industry has going forward, because if left to their own devices I think that they will pursue "a better source of revenue," and that will be sources that psychologically exploit their most vulnerable customers at the expense of millions of others who just want to have fun playing a game. You're right that this is their fiduciary responsibility, if they have the option to legally do so, which is why we need legal safeguards to prevent them from doing so.I agree that you "can" impose reasonable limitations, but there are very few posts in this thread I believe are reasonable (I am not speaking about your responses in particular, which have been conducted as a conversation and with respect). When something strikes an emotional chord with the strength this topic has, people are rarely including rationale thought and reason in their suggestions. It's part of the reason for guilds banning members for falling on one side or the other of the controversy; the "mob" mentality is a documented social mechanic. Giving an outside agency power to regulate all RNG, not just mount adoption licenses, is what I believe your talking about here (it would be silly to have a government agency just monitor mounts in GW2). Such an agency would then be able to publish loot drop rates (no problem with that), specify what level of value an item can be in order to be part of a drop table (some problem with that) and determine what the outside cost of a drop table item should be (big problem with that). That is not necessarily going to happen, but once you open that door it becomes more and more likely with each item checked off. This is a slippery slope, and once that ball gets rolling it is often difficult to stop (look at the US government for the last five years for examples).

That all being said, if the population votes to outlaw RNG and lootboxes in game, then that must be what people want and I accept that, even if I disagree. It will be incumbent upon ANet to alter their practices to a different successful business model that works for their customers or be shut down/file for business dissolution due to lack of profits. I would prefer to keep playing the game, but if ANet is unwilling to change given a large percentage of their players asking them to (btw I don't think we are there yet, not by a long shot), then they may not survive.

[Grey Moon.6531]

@"Kelian Ravenwood.4130" said:F2P games are primarily funded through advertisements (another big complaint by the gaming community) and microtransactions, many being RNG. Not all, surely; you can create a product that is so desired by the players that you don't need to charge anything at all if people are willing to donate money through startups or open requests for support. That said, those examples are few when compared to the microtransaction model, and that model produces the most revenue through chance and competition, hence RNG.

Errrr have you actually played any of the other NCSoft games? Aion and Blade and Soul both F2P don't have advertisements in them, unless you mean their internal mechanisms to get you to gamble, or buy from their in game stores? Pretty sure they both brag about being truly F2P, must be having a jab at "AAA" games, or GW2 being paid for games and wanting to eat their cake too!Sure there are loot boxes in them and other "micro" transactions, but I go into F2P games prepared for it. I didn't pay for the games up front so having to deal with this is part of the "cost".Forsaken World which is another game with has an obnoxious amount of RNG in it, but didn't at the time I played it lock RNG loot out of the auction house. Also no adverts.How about Rappelz? Nope no adverts unless it was so subliminal that I never noticed it! Or the wallet bleeder Shin Megami Tensei: Imagine? OMG was progression locked to loot box gear, but they had events where you could buy the gear via tickets every so often. Loot also not locked and could be brought from player shops if you were lucky. Also no adverts... Well maybe there was a tiny bit, with certain cool gears which were crossed licenced and not available in the west, but that wasn't intrusive apart from we couldn't get our grubby hands on it.Even the mobile games such as Summoners War, Valkyrie Connect, FE Heroes, Dragon Heroes don't have any adverts in the apart from RNG2US trying to get people to play their other games which only pop up on game start.All of the games listed are F2P and have been running for a while (apart from SMT:I which closed its western servers). I'm sure that there is a ton of F2P kitten out there which has a ton of adverts in it, but I guess I've been lucky enough to avoid it!Now there was this game which is still running which had this crazy model where you would pay for the game and extensions up front. No monthly fees, especially during the time when WoW was king of making money with up front fees and subs. You could buy useful non game mechanic breaking stuff in the shop like player slots (aka mules) or skins. Even the hero slots felt more like an effort to keep the game going for people who wanted to stick with the game and allowed them to solo it. No RNG in the cash shop. You know that game is called Guild Wars and I can still log into it and play!

Even to this day I much prefer the game mechanics of PvE and PvP in GW. It felt way more personal and beating a dungeon really felt good especially the 6 hour plus runs. The maps felt huge and felt spectacular especially for its time. Remember those GvG competitions with big cash prizes? No adverts, no cash shop loot boxes and so many hours of fun and amazement. What happened to the world?

[IndigoSundown.5419]

@Lithril Ashwalker.6230 said:i still await anets comments on these countries banning them

You might be waiting for some time. ANet's lawyers -- if worth anything -- are telling them to say nothing until there is actual legislation enacted that affects the company.

[Ohoni.6057]

@"Kelian Ravenwood.4130" said:I guess the disagreement here is that I believe ANet is listening to the complaints; how they choose to respond doesn't seem to be satisfying to the posters on this forum, and so others claim ANet is just ignoring them. I think they should also try to make as many players happy as possible, but as you pointed out they must also maintain the bottom line, and unfortunately those two goals are often mutually exclusive, particularly in this case as we do not know if ANet is meeting their profit goals or not.

If ANet is in trouble, which none of us want, then they should work with us to figure out a way to change that. I want to support ANet, I bought the $90 version of PoF even though I hated most of the bundled-in "bonuses." I still have something like 2000 gems left over from that purchase, but refuse to spend them on gamble boxes. I want to give them more, but I also refuse to reward bad behavior, I will not support money-gambling mechanisms in any form, no matter what they put behind them. You say they are listening, and maybe they are, but they are not communicating, because we do not see the results of them listening at any level. And this happens at all levels, both in the gem store and in the game itself. We get posts from Gaile about how "our feedback is reaching those in charge," and then they consistently act in ways that have nothing whatsoever to do with that feedback, any of it, and they never explain how or why that feedback was deemed irrelevant to their decision-making.

WalMart is retailing product in a market where identical products exist; the only vendors you can buy an item for Guild Wars 2 from is either ANet or a player selling the item, both regulated by ANet.

Yes, and that actually works in favor of my argument. Walmart does not have a monopoly, and still they manage to be profitable without resorting to gambling. Still they are capable of just saying "you want a pair of socks? $7, here's your socks," rather than "you want a pair of socks? Give us $7 and then if you roll a 12 on this D20 you can have a pair of socks, otherwise you get an orange or a book or something." ANet controls their market, they don't have to compete within the gem store, they can do what they want there. That's both a power and a responsibility to use that power justly.

ANet cannot do that as there is no outside existing business to draw from.

Not entirely true. They clearly don't have to compete for "items players can use withing GW2," but they definitely do have to compete for "things players want to spend their money on." If the Gem Store seems like a bad deal, then players are free to just not have nice things in GW2, and instead spend their money (and likely time) on completely different games. Expansion aside, I've spent a LOT more money in various other games than in GW2, because I've felt that they offered me better cost/benefit opportunities. Mainly they weren't insisting I give them money with no certain return on that payment.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe anyone starts playing Guild Wars 2 because of the cost of their gem store items...

Probably not, but they might start paying GW2 based on the prices in the Gem Store, rather than continuing to avoid it, and the Gem Store offerings might cause a veteran player to feel less inclined to continue playing, and shift them toward something else. It's basically like a company store in a small town, sure, they've got a monopoly on business within that town, but if they drive too hard a bargain, people will just move to a better town.

it's one reason why I think McDonald's is more applicable. While it is food, I don't believe anyone would suggest it's necessary for survival.

And yet at McDoalds, if I order a McFrappe, I get a McFrappe.

Usually.

Some of the time.

They try, at least.

I think this would just be a disagreement; I would not compare mount skins behind RNG to drug dealing, prostitution or other vice-based "industry".

They are different in degrees, certainly, but they prey on the same basic psychology. There have been papers on the subject, look up "Skinner boxes." They are systems designed to exploit certain psychological behaviors to convince people to spend more money than they otherwise might, to buy three mount skins when they only wanted one, a dozen when they only wanted three, because the system does not give them what they want on the first try. If ANet cannot sell a skin on its own merits then it's not a skin that they should be burdening anyone with.

I think one of the basic differences between this example of RNG and gambling is that money won from gambling can actually pay for basic needs, where a mount skin will not.

Anyone who goes into gambling feeling that they will satisfy their basic needs is likely to get himself into trouble. Gambling is about the rush of the win, about making a wager and having it pay off in getting the thing you wanted. That is no less true with loot boxes.

I agree that you "can" impose reasonable limitations, but there are very few posts in this thread I believe are reasonable (I am not speaking about your responses in particular, which have been conducted as a conversation and with respect). When something strikes an emotional chord with the strength this topic has, people are rarely including rationale thought and reason in their suggestions.

I agree that people reacting emotionally don't always propose the most constructive solutions, but I think they would accept more constructive solutions. After all, EA games had plenty of gamblebox elements before Battlefront II, and GW2 has had paid RNG before the mount skins. It's when these issues reach certain breaking points that people snap, and when they do, they aren't looking for soft compromises in that moment. Given a little time and a reasonable solution though, I think most people would go "ok, fine, that I can live with." My hard line on this issue is that there needs to be a non-RNG way of getting these skins at a reasonable price. I don't expect any better than that, and I think most players would accept it (although there is certainly an undercurrent in this game of players who feel that the current in-game rewards are lacking, and there probably should be something done about that).

Giving an outside agency power to regulate all RNG, not just mount adoption licenses, is what I believe your talking about here (it would be silly to have a government agency just monitor mounts in GW2). Such an agency would then be able to publish loot drop rates (no problem with that), specify what level of value an item can be in order to be part of a drop table (some problem with that) and determine what the outside cost of a drop table item should be (big problem with that).

Personally I'd just like a simple rule that says that in a game you aren't allowed to have an box* that can be purchased using real money, or with virtual currency that can be purchased using real money (ie gems), and this box provides a random resulting item. Neither would you be allowed to be "gifted" such a "box" as the result of a real money/gem transaction.

* as broadly defined as possible.

I think that rule, drawn up with appropriate legalese, could resolve the situation. You could still have RNG, just so long as it did not result from the purchase of an item.

Short of that, yes, published drop rates would be a good step. It would also be good for there to be a restriction requiring that ALL RNG-derived items but be open to re-selling (providing a market for players to discard unwanted items and directly acquire desired items), and ideally there would also be certain caps on RNG, like the odds of getting the least common item couldn't be so much lower than of getting the most common item. It's also good to have a "mercy rule" in play, where if players are rolling for X amount of times (ten is usually fair, or a monetary value could be set), then they can manually select the item that they want.

It will be incumbent upon ANet to alter their practices to a different successful business model that works for their customers or be shut down/file for business dissolution due to lack of profits.

All they have to do is take the items they're offering now in loot boxes, and instead offer them at a fair value directly. It's not rocket surgery.

[Ohoni.6057]

@"Grey Moon.6531" said:Errrr have you actually played any of the other NCSoft games? Aion and Blade and Soul both F2P don't have advertisements in them, unless you mean their internal mechanisms to get you to gamble, or buy from their in game stores? Pretty sure they both brag about being truly F2P, must be having a jab at "AAA" games, or GW2 being paid for games and wanting to eat their cake too!Sure there are loot boxes in them and other "micro" transactions, but I go into F2P games prepared for it. I didn't pay for the games up front so having to deal with this is part of the "cost".Forsaken World which is another game with has an obnoxious amount of RNG in it, but didn't at the time I played it lock RNG loot out of the auction house. Also no adverts.How about Rappelz? Nope no adverts unless it was so subliminal that I never noticed it! Or the wallet bleeder Shin Megami Tensei: Imagine? OMG was progression locked to loot box gear, but they had events where you could buy the gear via tickets every so often. Loot also not locked and could be brought from player shops if you were lucky. Also no adverts... Well maybe there was a tiny bit, with certain cool gears which were crossed licenced and not available in the west, but that wasn't intrusive apart from we couldn't get our grubby hands on it.Even the mobile games such as Summoners War, Valkyrie Connect, FE Heroes, Dragon Heroes don't have any adverts in the apart from RNG2US trying to get people to play their other games which only pop up on game start.

One mobile game I play is Marvel Future Fight. It's free to play, has no advertisements (aside from for their own products and occasionally a Marvel movie), and no serious gambling is required. They do have RNG methods of acquiring characters, but the direct methods are actually much more efficient. The only truly RNG element in the game is for certain gear, the GW2 version of ascended trinkets, basically, but you can get plenty good stuff without buying any of those boxes. Most of the characters can be acquired for free, with spending only increasing how quickly you can get them, and the few that you do need to pay for, you manually select the ones you want, no randomness whatsoever there. They offer plenty of things you can spend on, and I've spent a little, but every penny I've spent, I've got exactly what I set out to get from it.

[IM Zero.2143]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

One mobile game I play is Marvel Future Fight. It's free to play, has no advertisements (aside from for their own products and occasionally a Marvel movie), and no serious gambling is required. They do have RNG methods of acquiring characters, but the direct methods are actually much more efficient. The only truly RNG element in the game is for certain gear, the GW2 version of ascended trinkets, basically, but you can get plenty good stuff without buying any of those boxes. Most of the characters can be acquired for free, with spending only increasing how quickly you can get them, and the few that you do need to pay for, you manually select the ones you want, no randomness whatsoever there. They offer plenty of things you can spend on, and I've spent a little, but every penny I've spent, I've got exactly what I set out to get from it.

Yeah. Better daily rewards and at ~$3.99 Tony Stark's Stash = 3+ costumes a month. MFF has found a good balance between cost/reward.

[Grey Moon.6531]

You know what... Hey ANet if you want some F2P loot box shake down money create a F2P mobile game using the GW2 assets. You could do something amazing like Fallout Shelter, or just a run of the mill "got to gacha them all" like most of them, but that would give us choice to throw our money away without polluting GW2 which is really a paid for game how ever the "white knights" want to spin it.

[Grey Moon.6531]

One thing someone posted earlier, but the thread is too long and I can't find it. So I'm paraphrasing here.... "People with addictive personalities shouldn't play"Lets use diabetes as an comparison instead of addiction!!!
So someone has diabetes they go into a cafe and buy an onigiri (a Japanese rice ball). They bite into it and find out it really is a jelly doughnut!!!! Should they now avoid any onigiri in the future, or should the cafe sell the kitten'ing item correctly marketed it. To sum it up, ANet and other paid for game creators stop trying to change the "paid for game" into a glorified casino designed to milk us. There is already a genre for that called F2P and its all in the name!

[Kalibri.5861]

Folks, I think it's important to say that even though we're getting traction with governments and such, we absolutely need to keep pressure on. These companies aren't small and they're going to do what they can to continue to exploit you, so YOU HAVE TO BE LOUD ABOUT THIS. If you're in the United States, call your congresspeople, set up petitions, do what you can to make yourselves heard, because Electronic Arts, NCSoft, Activision, et al are going start blowing money on this to maintain the status quo. Don't expect that things will go our way just because there's some early recognition. Quite the opposite - if it gets shut down by industry lobbyists, they could make it harder for us to have any sort of impact and we'll have to deal with this trash forever.

RNG is the main problem. That's what makes it gambling. That's what we're concerned about. Let us buy items we can see.

[Zero Day.2594]

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@fizzypetal.7936 said:So after the past few days of reading and occasionally responding to posts in the GW2 forums, my thoughts are this: if the rage and disgust that has been expressed in the GW2 forums and elsewhere regarding Pixel Pony Paintgate were channelled into a force for good in the resolution of say

actual world problems

...like violence, clean water, sanitation, hunger and basic healthcare, imagine how much better the world might be for everyone. Someone actually said yesterday that MO should burn in hell. Over pixels in a make believe world. Mind boggling.

Funny you should say that. If this amount of complaining over a virtual game did not produce any real changes in the game, what makes you think that effort would have any effect whatsoever on world problems? The fact is -- and this is an unfortunate fact -- that any attempts to change things run into problems from not only the people in the driver's seats, but also many stakeholders who do not want change. It doesn't help, of course, that some people choose to express outrage and emotion, which generally gets used against them by those who want the status quo.

Disclaimer: I don't condone the hyperbole or insults. Complaining about a seller's sales tactics is legitimate consumer advocacy. Resorting to insults, blame, shame, etc. is counter-productive. At best, it gets the target's back up.

And yet, look at what the fuss with EA did.

With the social media at our side - so long as enough noise is generated...

Though, with GW2 and ANet/NCsoft, obviously it hasn't - and probably won't - reach the same level as EA. But, even if it reaches to the point were a few game articles are written about these mount skin loot boxes and especially at a time like this. It will chip away at ANet's/NCsoft's reputation. And while, the effect may be minimal at first, as more and more bad rep builds up...

---

Hell, on Steam, review bombing was/is a thing (think valve is trying to fight it).

[Sylent.3165]

Why isn't this a true thing yet?

The prices truly are extremely way too high. Armor skins which you can use 100% of the time cost less, while mounts which are only used to travel cost much more???

I've always been an anet fan but even if I really want a mount the price is crazy high.

[OrbitalButt.5708]

So don't buy the thing, seems simple

[nighthawke.3075]

i find it funny PoF comes out, nothing but praise for mounts, cheer's of "take allz of muh moneyz for mount skins!!!1!" Anet puts out skins, screams of "boycott mount skins". Man make up your minds either they are good enough to be worth the money or not. this is what endless praise gets in a Cash shop game.

PS: i haven't bought a single mount skin because i don't like RNG and dont like the look of the singles or pack skins so far.

[Ohoni.6057]

I've been boycotting them since they came out. Or, rather, I'm just waiting for them to release the ones I want at a reasonable price, and then I will give them money for them, like an actual business.

[Ayumi Spender.1082]

I've been boycotting for a while.Then again my version of boycott is, "Will give money if I see something I like."Halloween mounts? I gave money.RNG? Hahahaha! No thanks.Mecha Ram? Hahahaha! Ugly no....Turkey Chicken Peacock with messed up feathers and buttcape? Hahahaha! Ugly no...

[Reynarth.4819]

You don't have to buy it if you think it costs too much, you know that?

[Zoltar MacRoth.7146]

@nighthawke.3075 said:i find it funny PoF comes out, nothing but praise for mounts, cheer's of "take allz of muh moneyz for mount skins!!!1!" Anet puts out skins, screams of "boycott mount skins". Man make up your minds either they are good enough to be worth the money or not.

It seems players are expressing the view that they are not. Which seems to be your view too. So, it really is funny, in an ironic way.

[Erasculio.2914]

@cNd.1096 said:You don't have to buy it if you think it costs too much, you know that?

Irrelevant.

See, it's obvious the majority of players are not going to buy those skins priced at 2000 gems. Saying you're "boycotting" the mount skins by not buying them is completely irrelevant - the business model was never based on everyone buying one. Just on a few players - the "whales" - buying them. If you simply don't buy them, someone else will, and ArenaNet will have no incentive to change anything.

Same thing with the loot boxes. Do you have any doubt that EA would have made a lot of money with the Battlefrond loot boxes? For every group of players who complained, a single player would buy a tons of those boxes, and EA would still make a killer profit. If the only thing people did was to "vote with their wallets", nothing would have changed.

Companies only move away from this kind of strategy if there's enough of a backlash against them. Now, I'm not sure even the Battlefield backlash against EA will be enough to stop them, and ArenaNet's situation is far from being that dire.

But saying "stop complaining and just don't buy the skins" is rather useless - that is not going to change anything.