Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]

[Wolfheart.7483]

.> @GreyWolf.8670 said:

@Bunter.3795 said:The amount of overdramatic responses to the concerns people have about these new skins is almost beyond belief. I have no problem with people having an opinion and posting it but the sheer amount of hyperbole and dramatization makes it hard to take what people are saying seriously.

The 2 biggest offenders I've seen posted are that Anet is evil and preying on it's customers and that this new skin acquisition method is gambling and preys on those with gambling addiction/weakness.

Anet is not evil. It's not preying on it's customers. Don't get me wrong. I'm no white knight and I think Anet has many faults in regards to it's gem shop and micro-transactions but I do not feel it's evil or preying.

At the most Anet is guilty of using these mount skins to hit harder on those with impulse control. This is not unique to Anet as every, and I do mean every, single merchant out there uses impulse items in it's marketing. All those items around the checkout are not there just because you might need them, they are there to get you to impulse buy them. You've shopped the big box store and are now thirsty, hungry, or bored while waiting in line. Well they have a nice cooler with 20oz bottles of water/soda for your thirst, a huge rack full of candy for your hunger and numerous magazines there to read while you're bored and waiting. How many of those items did you truly need? Probably very few but you've bought them due to the placement of the items and your lack on control on your impulses. They could and usually do have these items somewhere else in the store and you could go and get them if you wanted but they sell more when they are at a place where impulse kicks in.

It's the same with these mount skins. Most are unsatisfied with the lack of dye channels on the core mounts and want to make themselves look unique or at least different than the rest of those we see in game. So we purchase a chance at getting the skin we want. it's this chance that has people comparing it to gambling.

The biggest issue I have with those comparing the new mount acquisition method to gambling is that, unlike true gambling, this method has an end point and final cost. You have a maximum expenditure of 12,000 gems. That's it. No more can be spent on getting a mount via this method. It's not gambling when you have a guaranteed result, you spend 12,000 gems you WILL get the mount you want. That is not gambling. It's not even close. You cannot buy more than 30 chances. You cannot spend more than 12,000 gems. Sure you may get lucky early on and not have to spend as much but there is an end point and maximum expenditure. It's not gambling when you have those two points.

Most of would argue that 12,000 gems for a single skin is too much and I would agree. This is where the impulse control comes in. Do you buy a chance for the skin you want or do you wait? Do you want the skin so badly that you are not able to wait until you have the gems to buy them all or do you take a chance now? It's up to you.

The way I look at it is almost like an installment plan. You have a purchase you want to make and it costs 12,000 gems. Some people have more money than others and they are given a discount of 2,400 gems by buying all of the skins at once. Anet gets the immediate influx of money from those people and due to the amount of instant cash, they are given a discount. This is the same as every major purchase you ever make in life. Want to buy a house and don't have the cash for the full purchase price, well you can get a loan. Sure it costs more than if you paid in full at purchase but it helps you out. Yeah, I know , real life vs games but the point holds in this case. 12,000 gems is a major in game purchase. Anet has actually made this easier as they have given us a number of advantages. We have no required installment payment, we have no time limit (as of yet). We can choose to pay if we want, when we want and how often we want.

The thing about this item is that is a true convenience item. The mounts function exactly the same whether they have a new skin or have the core skin. No one gets an advantage in game because they got these skins.

Personally I have no problem with this method or the price. Anet gets to make a lot of skins that cater to a lot of different opinions. While you may not like numerous skins but someone out there will like the ones you dislike and that person may dislike the ones you find most likeable. Everyone shares in the production cost to make everyone happy. I will buy these over time. I'm going to get a new skin with every purchase. I will eventually get them all when I decide to purchase them. I will use gem purchases and in game gold conversion to get them when I feel I have enough of either one to make the choice.

No, what is obvious now is that they removed content from an expansion they lowered to $30 in the hopes of gaining it back by reselling content that should have been in said expansion. Blizzard 2.0

Yeah because you know for a fact these skins were designed before PoF released and not done in the past few weeks.

It's these empty accusations that contribute nothing to the conversation. It's simply negativity for the sake of it. You have no facts to base your assumption on.

[pah.4931]

@SmirkDog.3160 said:

@pah.4931 said:Is it immoral for Anet to make more money so they can pay their employees living wages? Or so they can even prevent themselves from getting shutdown??

Is it immoral for you to ask for a raise at work? Or to demand money at all for your work?

Calling this immoral is laughable. "It's not right" is a terrible, emotion-based argument.

Is it immoral to sell cigarettes? People know what they are (and that they kill you) so who takes the blame? I'll answer for you. When they lied and covered up the truth, it was the company. When its full knowledge of the product, it's the buyer. You know exactly what you are buying. Just because YOU don't enjoy the randomness of it, doesn't mean it's wrong or immoral.

People love to say they're just trying to make money, but they can make money by just selling the skins. Sell them individually, and people will buy them. Hundreds of people in this thread have said they wanted at least one skin but didn't want to pay the extra money and deal with the RNG. It's a scam. Plain and simple.

And why do people keep bringing up cigarettes......... I don't smoke. I have asthma, so it's double unhealthy for me. So I just don't. That means nothing. You're right, I do know what I'm buying. And that's why I'm not buying it.

Duh.

Oh and, you're right. It's not immoral to demand money for my work. So from now on, if people want to buy any of my designs or photos, they can pay $20 for a random one, and $300 for all of them. Just biz, y'know.

They are trying to make MORE money. Which isn't inherently evil by itself. That is what I am saying.

[STIHL.2489]

Guys... think about it.Dyes are RNGWeapon Skins are RNG

Why is anyone surprised that Mount skins are RNG now too?

I mean personally.. I would have liked it better if it was divided up by Mount type, so, if I wanted, I could just get a Random Raptor Skin, or Random Skimmer Skin.. s opposed to any skin from any mount.

If they broke it up a bit at least, to that we could pick which mount we wanted the RNG skin for, that would be much better., IMHO.

[Dovienya.6597]

I love GW and Tyria and have been a resident of this world for a decade. I bought almost everything on offer from the first game's cash shop. My household owns multiple GW2 with expansions and probably spends more than we should on gems in general. I'm not big on black lion keys AT ALL, but at least you can choose which claim ticket item you want. If they absolutely had to go this lousy route, they could have done something similar with mount skins.

Either way, I was already unhappy with the class balance issues. Now there's this. Here are some accounts that will be playing less and buying nothing for the time being.

[Witch of Doom.5739]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:Why didn't anet make all of the skins cool, I dont understand how you can have a cool griffin skin like starbound and then add in other skins that have no particle effects. At least if all of the mounts had particle effects, the buyers remorse of gambling and getting the skin you don't want would be mitigated by equally cool/quality skins.

But we don't all want particle effects. I want some of the more subtle skins but am not gambling on the chance of getting them or (more likely) not getting them.

[Wolfheart.7483]

@Jumpin Lumpix.6108 said:Why didn't anet make all of the skins cool, I dont understand how you can have a cool griffin skin like starbound and then add in other skins that have no particle effects. At least if all of the mounts had particle effects, the buyers remorse of gambling and getting the skin you don't want would be mitigated by equally cool/quality skins.

All other aspects aside, making all the skins flashy with particle effects would not be good. There are many players who like more simplistic, non-flashy appearances.

I, for example, like both simple and flashy. Depending on the theme for a specific character, I choose mount skins that suit them accordingly. Some use the flashy mounts with effects and some use the basic ones.

[SmirkDog.3160]

@pah.4931 said:They are trying to make MORE money. Which isn't inherently evil by itself. That is what I am saying.

Sorry to dispel the illusion for you here, but greed isn't exactly not evil.

[Sylv.5324]

They could make more money without having us play slots.

[Dreams.3128]

@SmirkDog.3160 said:

@pah.4931 said:They are trying to make MORE money. Which isn't inherently evil by itself. That is what I am saying.

Sorry to dispel the illusion for you here, but greed isn't exactly

not

evil.

It isn't exactly evil either.Greed can create drive, therefore to make bigger things.Too much greed inherently evil because it eventually causes long-term harm.

[GreyWolf.8670]

@Wolfheart.7483 said:.> @GreyWolf.8670 said:

@Bunter.3795 said:The amount of overdramatic responses to the concerns people have about these new skins is almost beyond belief. I have no problem with people having an opinion and posting it but the sheer amount of hyperbole and dramatization makes it hard to take what people are saying seriously.

The 2 biggest offenders I've seen posted are that Anet is evil and preying on it's customers and that this new skin acquisition method is gambling and preys on those with gambling addiction/weakness.

Anet is not evil. It's not preying on it's customers. Don't get me wrong. I'm no white knight and I think Anet has many faults in regards to it's gem shop and micro-transactions but I do not feel it's evil or preying.

At the most Anet is guilty of using these mount skins to hit harder on those with impulse control. This is not unique to Anet as every, and I do mean every, single merchant out there uses impulse items in it's marketing. All those items around the checkout are not there just because you might need them, they are there to get you to impulse buy them. You've shopped the big box store and are now thirsty, hungry, or bored while waiting in line. Well they have a nice cooler with 20oz bottles of water/soda for your thirst, a huge rack full of candy for your hunger and numerous magazines there to read while you're bored and waiting. How many of those items did you truly need? Probably very few but you've bought them due to the placement of the items and your lack on control on your impulses. They could and usually do have these items somewhere else in the store and you could go and get them if you wanted but they sell more when they are at a place where impulse kicks in.

It's the same with these mount skins. Most are unsatisfied with the lack of dye channels on the core mounts and want to make themselves look unique or at least different than the rest of those we see in game. So we purchase a chance at getting the skin we want. it's this chance that has people comparing it to gambling.

The biggest issue I have with those comparing the new mount acquisition method to gambling is that, unlike true gambling, this method has an end point and final cost. You have a maximum expenditure of 12,000 gems. That's it. No more can be spent on getting a mount via this method. It's not gambling when you have a guaranteed result, you spend 12,000 gems you WILL get the mount you want. That is not gambling. It's not even close. You cannot buy more than 30 chances. You cannot spend more than 12,000 gems. Sure you may get lucky early on and not have to spend as much but there is an end point and maximum expenditure. It's not gambling when you have those two points.

Most of would argue that 12,000 gems for a single skin is too much and I would agree. This is where the impulse control comes in. Do you buy a chance for the skin you want or do you wait? Do you want the skin so badly that you are not able to wait until you have the gems to buy them all or do you take a chance now? It's up to you.

The way I look at it is almost like an installment plan. You have a purchase you want to make and it costs 12,000 gems. Some people have more money than others and they are given a discount of 2,400 gems by buying all of the skins at once. Anet gets the immediate influx of money from those people and due to the amount of instant cash, they are given a discount. This is the same as every major purchase you ever make in life. Want to buy a house and don't have the cash for the full purchase price, well you can get a loan. Sure it costs more than if you paid in full at purchase but it helps you out. Yeah, I know , real life vs games but the point holds in this case. 12,000 gems is a major in game purchase. Anet has actually made this easier as they have given us a number of advantages. We have no required installment payment, we have no time limit (as of yet). We can choose to pay if we want, when we want and how often we want.

The thing about this item is that is a true convenience item. The mounts function exactly the same whether they have a new skin or have the core skin. No one gets an advantage in game because they got these skins.

Personally I have no problem with this method or the price. Anet gets to make a lot of skins that cater to a lot of different opinions. While you may not like numerous skins but someone out there will like the ones you dislike and that person may dislike the ones you find most likeable. Everyone shares in the production cost to make everyone happy. I will buy these over time. I'm going to get a new skin with every purchase. I will eventually get them all when I decide to purchase them. I will use gem purchases and in game gold conversion to get them when I feel I have enough of either one to make the choice.

No, what is obvious now is that they removed content from an expansion they lowered to $30 in the hopes of gaining it back by reselling content that should have been in said expansion. Blizzard 2.0

Yeah because you know for a fact these skins were designed before PoF released and not done in the past few weeks.

It's these empty accusations that contribute nothing to the conversation. It's simply negativity for the sake of it. You have no facts to base your assumption on.

It's not like you've contributed anything to the discussion. The fact that they started introducing extra multi-dye channeled mount skins as PAY ONLY when there is only one available to earn in game points directly to this being turned into a cash grab. There is NO customization other than one color for the "mounts" in this game.

[Tengu Talons.7921]

I don't mind the lotto because it adds scarcity and diversity to the mount skins used, which I enjoy . I'd probably not get any if everyone was just using the same 4 skins unless they were super cheap. With this said I eagerly await prestigious skins to be added to the game for completing end game content or expensive collections requiring gold and materials. Also let none PoF accounts gift them. Thanks.

[Wolfheart.7483]

@SmirkDog.3160 said:

@pah.4931 said:They are trying to make MORE money. Which isn't inherently evil by itself. That is what I am saying.

Sorry to dispel the illusion for you here, but greed isn't exactly

not

evil.

Sorry to dispel the illusion for you here, but a business wanting to make more money is not automatically greedy. Businesses need to make more money to grow.

[DarcShriek.5829]

@Sylv.5324 said:

@Lilyanna.9361 said:

It's not a business's job to look out for children unless that is what their business is based around.

I live in Vegas, and casinos do, in fact, have anti-addiction measures in place, as well as contribute to anti-addiction programs. The system ANet came up with is basically slots. Its black lion boxes certainly are (the interface is a simplified version), and so is this mount system. The only difference is that you are guaranteed some kind of result, as opposed to none. The issue is that folks rightly want the chance to pick a skin (and/or trade them, but there is no such option unlike almost everything else in loot boxes), and IDK why you would argue against that.

I'm one of those vaunted whales, and I think this is wrong. I haven't bought a single skin.

There's a big difference between the mount skins and slot machines. The difference is that if you buy 30 mount skins you are guaranteed to get them all. There is no gambling, there is no risk. Buy the set, get the set.

You don't get that with slot machines. There is no guarantee, every spin is independent of the previous spin. Pay for a whole cycle and you won't hit every result.

There is only one way to eliminate loot boxes. Go to your state reps. Convince them that loot boxes should be regulated as gambling. It only takes one state to decide to regulate them and it all ends. Look what it did for fantasy football.

[GreyWolf.8670]

@DarcShriek.5829 said:

@Sylv.5324 said:

@Lilyanna.9361 said:

It's not a business's job to look out for children unless that is what their business is based around.

I live in Vegas, and casinos do, in fact, have anti-addiction measures in place, as well as contribute to anti-addiction programs. The system ANet came up with is basically slots. Its black lion boxes certainly are (the interface is a simplified version), and so is this mount system. The only difference is that you are guaranteed some kind of result, as opposed to none. The issue is that folks rightly want the chance to pick a skin (and/or trade them, but there is no such option unlike almost everything else in loot boxes), and IDK why you would argue against that.

I'm one of those vaunted whales, and I think this is wrong. I haven't bought a single skin.

There's a big difference between the mount skins and slot machines. The difference is that if you buy 30 mount skins you are guaranteed to get them all. There is no gambling, there is no risk. Buy the set, get the set.

You don't get that with slot machines. There is no guarantee, every spin is independent of the previous spin. Pay for a whole cycle and you won't hit every result.

The 30 skin pack is not gambling. The single one is. If you want all of them the chance is 100%. If you only want one it's a minimum of 1 in 30 depending on the rarity weight, which they did not disclose. Are the "dice" loaded? We don't know.

Fixed slot machines are a problem, still, too. https://www.americancasinoguide.com/slot-machines/are-slot-machines-honest.html

[LanfearShadowflame.3189]

@OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:

@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

@OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:

@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

@Chickenooble.5014 said:So I looked up the definition. "take risky action in the hope of a desired result."

So joining a fractal pug is gambling?So running in WvW using a berzerker solo build is gambling?Getting double hits on Claw of Jormag or Tequatl is gambling?Picking the wrong squad for Labs is gambling?

The entire game is a casino apparently!

Yes, each of those is a gamble.

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

While you certainly could say everything in a game, or indeed life, is a gamble, If you apply the word to everything, it completely looses its significance and relevance. Therefore we must only use 'Gambling' as it's intended definition applies.

Spending real money, on one of a variety of options, to which the obtained outcome does not envolve the power of choice, and leaves everything to random chance, is a form of gambling. This is akin to placing a $5 bill in a casino slot machine, pressing the button, and watching the meter spin around in circles over 30 possible items before stopping on one. If that is considered gambling in a casino -and make no mistake it is- it is gambling here too.

But deffinitions aside, regardless of whether we call this "adoption" gambling or not, is irrelevant. The simple fact of the mater is I dont like it; there is huuuuge risk that ill waste a LOT of money obtaining things i dont want instead of buying something I do. Its not worth the risk, not worth the money, so I wont do it. And im not alone. Period. Simple as that.

Yes, it is gambling by the broad definition of the term. The problem with trying to apply it the way you, and others, are trying to apply it implies the "legal" definition of "gamble", which this doesn't meet the requirements for. At least not at this time. If it did, it would require legal oversight, like a casino. And the game would likely require people to be at least 18 to play it at that point.

This has a guaranteed reward. You are purchasing an item and exchanging it for another. Yes, there is risk in that you may not get the skin you are after; however, you are guaranteed a skin for every purchase. "Gambling" in the sense people are trying to apply it, has no guarantees which is where it's 'risk' comes in. More often than not you will get

nothing

, because that is how it is set up to work. Yes, you will eventually get something, but in the long run you typically lose more than you gain. Here you lose nothing, it is an equal trade. You may not like the skin. You may not ever use it. But you never, ever get nothing. You may view it as "getting nothing" because you do not like it, or because you do not use it, but it does remain that you do actually get something (of equal value. this is actually important to note).

No, actually, I thought i made myself quite clear, I was not using the legal definition of 'Gambling', but the 'spirit of the word', ie: its 'intended definition.'

Again, as I said, the word itself doesnt mater, the point is many of us are unhappy with ANets merchanidzing practices, and as such we request they amend them. Until they do, we will not be spending money on these items, and ANet will lose a large chunck of their possible income. It would therefore be in our best interest as players/consumers, and their's as a business/producer, to choose more consumer friendly, and thus profitable marketing practices.

We, or at least I(as it would be foolheardly to claim I speak for all the dissenters) are trying desperately to send this message to the Devs because I love their game, and DO want to spend money on it, DO want to support it, and DO want to aquire some of these items. But the manor in which I support IS important, I would not let my own family starve just to feed a starving child. I care about the future and success of the game, and that is why I post complaints and suggestions: to bring GW2 back to a place where I can happily support them. A deal that is just as lucrative for them as it is for me.

It's hard to believe you're using the 'spirit of the word' when you compare it to a slot machine which has no guaranteed return. Regardless, we agree that it fits the broader term, moving on.

I understand where you're coming from. You don't agree with the RNG aspect of it, and as such won't buy them. That's fine. Typically that's my advice to most people - don't like it, don't buy it. That's not any different than what I do when I don't agree with something. Vote with your wallet.

That said, I don't think it's going away. Which is why I made the suggestions that I did earlier in the thread - 1) give us non-rng cash shop skins that we can straight up buy if we like them (I should probably specify both individual skins as well as bundles, otherwise they'll just stick us with bundles, which not everyone likes), 2) give us non-rng in game skins that we can hunt down and earn, 3) adjust the BLS to allow us to at least limit the RNG by the mount type we want a skin for. I think between the 3 of these, it might assuage most peoples ire.

[Tybrim.1958]

I would spend the money if not for the RNG, but as has been mentioned, I wish some/most of the skins were adventure/story rewards or loooooong chain lines. I'd prefer to consume content and spend time in game rather than walk up to a vendor. With that said, I won't be buying any skins until they fix they Spooky skin issue with the Raptor clipping and the Skimmer I was hoping for something after the balance update but the mounts are unusable...

That was the first time I reached for my wallet to support anet, and I ended up with a defective item...

[troops.8276]

@pah.4931 said:

@SmirkDog.3160 said:

@Lilyanna.9361 said:For the people who who trying to put law or just trying to put some sort ruling against lootboxes:

What is your defense?How would you make the judges pay attention?How would you make it to some form of court?Would this even go past civil court?

If you do not have a sufficient answer to any of these questions, lootboxes will never be illegal. The judges would toss this case faster than you can blink and move. Just thought I'd out there for those who were attempting to bring some sort of court against this business practice.

Y'know, something doesn't have to be illegal to for you to not do it. It's immoral, regardless of the legality. So they shouldn't be forced to stop by a judge or something, they should just stop because it's not right.

Is it immoral for Anet to make more money so they can pay their employees living wages? Or so they can even prevent themselves from getting shutdown??

Is it immoral for you to ask for a raise at work? Or to demand money at all for your work?

Calling this immoral is laughable. "It's not right" is a terrible, emotion-based argument.

Is it immoral to sell cigarettes? People know what they are (and that they kill you) so who takes the blame? I'll answer for you. When they lied and covered up the truth, it was the company. When its full knowledge of the product, it's the buyer. You know exactly what you are buying. Just because YOU don't enjoy the randomness of it, doesn't mean it's wrong or immoral.

How a company chooses to make money is obviously an issue. Are we back in the 80s? I'm actually only aghast that people are defending some weird idea that the ends justify the means and that the top brass in a company have no agency. This issue has been dragged out into some strange places. I mean are we going to start writing essays on subjects such as; the illusion of consciousness, governments as a proxy between consumers and businesses in capitalist democracies, why left wing socialist ideologies don't work, why the right wing ideal of self regulation in the corporate world is a fallacy, human socio evolutionary theory, business ethics in a competitive jobs market, base pay not keeping up with worker output and how that led to the recent economic downturn, globalization and trade deficits, etc, etc.It's pretty simple. It's an obvious kitten move by Anet. Is it the great evil of our day. Of course not. Is it the same as giving crack to kids. Of course not. Is it all good, no problems bro, of course not.

[Wolfheart.7483]

@GreyWolf.8670 said:

@Wolfheart.7483 said:.> @GreyWolf.8670 said:

@Bunter.3795 said:The amount of overdramatic responses to the concerns people have about these new skins is almost beyond belief. I have no problem with people having an opinion and posting it but the sheer amount of hyperbole and dramatization makes it hard to take what people are saying seriously.

The 2 biggest offenders I've seen posted are that Anet is evil and preying on it's customers and that this new skin acquisition method is gambling and preys on those with gambling addiction/weakness.

Anet is not evil. It's not preying on it's customers. Don't get me wrong. I'm no white knight and I think Anet has many faults in regards to it's gem shop and micro-transactions but I do not feel it's evil or preying.

At the most Anet is guilty of using these mount skins to hit harder on those with impulse control. This is not unique to Anet as every, and I do mean every, single merchant out there uses impulse items in it's marketing. All those items around the checkout are not there just because you might need them, they are there to get you to impulse buy them. You've shopped the big box store and are now thirsty, hungry, or bored while waiting in line. Well they have a nice cooler with 20oz bottles of water/soda for your thirst, a huge rack full of candy for your hunger and numerous magazines there to read while you're bored and waiting. How many of those items did you truly need? Probably very few but you've bought them due to the placement of the items and your lack on control on your impulses. They could and usually do have these items somewhere else in the store and you could go and get them if you wanted but they sell more when they are at a place where impulse kicks in.

It's the same with these mount skins. Most are unsatisfied with the lack of dye channels on the core mounts and want to make themselves look unique or at least different than the rest of those we see in game. So we purchase a chance at getting the skin we want. it's this chance that has people comparing it to gambling.

The biggest issue I have with those comparing the new mount acquisition method to gambling is that, unlike true gambling, this method has an end point and final cost. You have a maximum expenditure of 12,000 gems. That's it. No more can be spent on getting a mount via this method. It's not gambling when you have a guaranteed result, you spend 12,000 gems you WILL get the mount you want. That is not gambling. It's not even close. You cannot buy more than 30 chances. You cannot spend more than 12,000 gems. Sure you may get lucky early on and not have to spend as much but there is an end point and maximum expenditure. It's not gambling when you have those two points.

Most of would argue that 12,000 gems for a single skin is too much and I would agree. This is where the impulse control comes in. Do you buy a chance for the skin you want or do you wait? Do you want the skin so badly that you are not able to wait until you have the gems to buy them all or do you take a chance now? It's up to you.

The way I look at it is almost like an installment plan. You have a purchase you want to make and it costs 12,000 gems. Some people have more money than others and they are given a discount of 2,400 gems by buying all of the skins at once. Anet gets the immediate influx of money from those people and due to the amount of instant cash, they are given a discount. This is the same as every major purchase you ever make in life. Want to buy a house and don't have the cash for the full purchase price, well you can get a loan. Sure it costs more than if you paid in full at purchase but it helps you out. Yeah, I know , real life vs games but the point holds in this case. 12,000 gems is a major in game purchase. Anet has actually made this easier as they have given us a number of advantages. We have no required installment payment, we have no time limit (as of yet). We can choose to pay if we want, when we want and how often we want.

The thing about this item is that is a true convenience item. The mounts function exactly the same whether they have a new skin or have the core skin. No one gets an advantage in game because they got these skins.

Personally I have no problem with this method or the price. Anet gets to make a lot of skins that cater to a lot of different opinions. While you may not like numerous skins but someone out there will like the ones you dislike and that person may dislike the ones you find most likeable. Everyone shares in the production cost to make everyone happy. I will buy these over time. I'm going to get a new skin with every purchase. I will eventually get them all when I decide to purchase them. I will use gem purchases and in game gold conversion to get them when I feel I have enough of either one to make the choice.

No, what is obvious now is that they removed content from an expansion they lowered to $30 in the hopes of gaining it back by reselling content that should have been in said expansion. Blizzard 2.0

Yeah because you know for a fact these skins were designed before PoF released and not done in the past few weeks.

It's these empty accusations that contribute nothing to the conversation. It's simply negativity for the sake of it. You have no facts to base your assumption on.

It's not like you've contributed anything to the discussion. The fact that they started introducing extra multi-dye channeled mount skins as PAY ONLY when there is only one available to earn in game points directly to this being turned into a cash grab. There is NO customization other than one color for the "mounts" in this game.

I have made several posts throughout the thread. What I think you meant was that I haven't contributed anything that you agree with.

[Marque.6897]

I absolutely don't mind that Anet is trying to make money. And I happily spend money on expansions and on cosmetic items from the store, because I like this game, I play this game and I want to support this game and it's developers.But the RNG system of buying mounts skins might have possibly changed my mind. The whole idea of a STORE is that you go in and buy what you WANT, not a chance to get what you want. It's simply ridiculous. I really like some of the mount skins. Okay, lets say I really like 5 of them, one for each mount. I would gladly pay 700g for each of them, because I think they are beautiful and worth the money. But in this system, to get the 5 I want I need to pay 9600g. And almost 2000g per skin is WAY TOO MUCH.I don't care about any of the skins for Skimmer or for Jackal, yet I am forced to waste my money on it.I admit, I've made the mistake of buying a few adoption passes - I wanted to try my luck, I suppose. But I admit it was a mistake. And I will not be buying any more of them and I will not be buying any items that are introduced in an RNG system like this, because it's unfair and disrespectful to me as a client. I'm disappointed in you, Anet. And I really hope that you will recognise this was a mistake and change your approach to this in the future. And until then, I won't be buying anything from the gem market anymore, because obviously, the best way to show what we think about such practices is with our wallets.

[troops.8276]

@pah.4931 said:

@SmirkDog.3160 said:

@Lilyanna.9361 said:For the people who who trying to put law or just trying to put some sort ruling against lootboxes:

What is your defense?How would you make the judges pay attention?How would you make it to some form of court?Would this even go past civil court?

If you do not have a sufficient answer to any of these questions, lootboxes will never be illegal. The judges would toss this case faster than you can blink and move. Just thought I'd out there for those who were attempting to bring some sort of court against this business practice.

Y'know, something doesn't have to be illegal to for you to not do it. It's immoral, regardless of the legality. So they shouldn't be forced to stop by a judge or something, they should just stop because it's not right.

Is it immoral for Anet to make more money so they can pay their employees living wages? Or so they can even prevent themselves from getting shutdown??

Is it immoral for you to ask for a raise at work? Or to demand money at all for your work?

Calling this immoral is laughable. "It's not right" is a terrible, emotion-based argument.

Is it immoral to sell cigarettes? People know what they are (and that they kill you) so who takes the blame? I'll answer for you. When they lied and covered up the truth, it was the company. When its full knowledge of the product, it's the buyer. You know exactly what you are buying. Just because YOU don't enjoy the randomness of it, doesn't mean it's wrong or immoral.

And also, who says their going out of business. This isn't being done because "wont someone please think of the poor starving anet employees" for someone who argues against emotional appeals you sure do use them alort yourself.

[Hell Avenger.7021]

I do not like gambling, thus I am not paying for the mount skin gamble box with real money.

Furthermore, 2000 gem for one mount skin is just ridiculous. That I will not buy with real money ever. Try again pricing team.

Above is your feedback. In business term, your perception of your business product value clearly does not match with your consumers' willingness to pay. Go back to your marketing and pricing team to work this out.

On a side note, with more games competing with peoples' wallet. You should probably create products that are good value to your customers. We can always spend money elsewhere. Do not believe that you are not competing, even FPS games like Star Wars Battlefront II and Destiny II are trying to compete for concurrent revenue streams. Your competitions have stiffened a lot more than ever before. Your definition of competition should not just include MMO, they should be including all games with concurrent revenue model.

Giving you a bit insight into your customers. I am spending money in other games. However, I know how much I am spending. The money I spent elsewhere decreases my willingness to spend in GW2.

It is really funny, video game industry does not understand the power of their corporate brand. In other industries, things like this should be very frightening. Your customers are long term, who wants to piss them off. If they are not coming back, you just lose them forever.

When I become a parent, I am going to carefully watch what game my children will play. Things like gamble box will be a huge negative for my gaming selection for my future children. Your next generation customers will be more and more tech savvy, and we can distinguish between these pricing practices easily.

[DarcShriek.5829]

@GreyWolf.8670 said:

@DarcShriek.5829 said:

@Sylv.5324 said:

@Lilyanna.9361 said:

It's not a business's job to look out for children unless that is what their business is based around.

I live in Vegas, and casinos do, in fact, have anti-addiction measures in place, as well as contribute to anti-addiction programs. The system ANet came up with is basically slots. Its black lion boxes certainly are (the interface is a simplified version), and so is this mount system. The only difference is that you are guaranteed some kind of result, as opposed to none. The issue is that folks rightly want the chance to pick a skin (and/or trade them, but there is no such option unlike almost everything else in loot boxes), and IDK why you would argue against that.

I'm one of those vaunted whales, and I think this is wrong. I haven't bought a single skin.

There's a big difference between the mount skins and slot machines. The difference is that if you buy 30 mount skins you are guaranteed to get them all. There is no gambling, there is no risk. Buy the set, get the set.

You don't get that with slot machines. There is no guarantee, every spin is independent of the previous spin. Pay for a whole cycle and you won't hit every result.

The 30 skin pack is not gambling. The single one is. If you want all of them the chance is 100%. If you only want one it's a minimum of 1 in 30 depending on the rarity weight, which they did not disclose. Are the "dice" loaded? We don't know.

Fixed slot machines are a problem, still, too.

https://www.americancasinoguide.com/slot-machines/are-slot-machines-honest.html

I've been designing slot machines for over 12 years. The article you linked to is ignorant.

[adubb.2453]

Honestly, I find this move towards loot box style "gameplay" to be immensely disappointing and gives me great pause when considering whether or not GW2 is worth spending my continued time on.

And it's not just the loot box mentality, but the fact that so many cosmetic options, which ultimately is the point of the end game, are gated behind gems (read: IRL money). I've generally enjoyed my time in PoF, but I have to admit, once I had finished the story and fully unlocked the elite specs I wanted, I haven't is logged in much because I just feel like there isn't much point for me to do so. What is there for me to work towards? There aren't any real map metas like in HoT, and so many things are locked behind either real life money or collections that are practically impenetrable.

I guess what I'm saying is, please, for godsake, add some more incentive for me to play the actual game. And while you're at it, if you're going to lock all the new weapons/armor behind collections, can you please add a tab or some way to search through the god awful acheivement panel so I can find the ones that include armor/weapons? Maybe a quest system so I can track my progress in-game towards a specific goal?

Or would you rather I just give you my money and hope I get the one thing I want because you're too greedy to put that work towards a system that actually rewards gameplay?

(Sorry for the salt, but this has me pissed off for two reasons: The loot box blatant cash grab BS and the continued refusal to offer rewards via game play)

[OtakuModeEngage.8679]

@STIHL.2489 said:Guys... think about it.Dyes are RNGWeapon Skins are RNG

Why is anyone surprised that Mount skins are RNG now too?

I mean personally.. I would have liked it better if it was divided up by Mount type, so, if I wanted, I could just get a Random Raptor Skin, or Random Skimmer Skin.. s opposed to any skin from any mount.

If they broke it up a bit at least, to that we could pick which mount we wanted the RNG skin for, that would be much better., IMHO.

There no gemstore weapons skins that are RNG. The weapon skins dropped by enemies in-game are RNG, but that's irelevant since we dont have to buy them. Yes there are RNG Dyes on gemstore, but these items can also be bought and sold in TP. Moreover, I have never and will never buy Gem Store RNG dyes, just as I will NEVER buy Gem Store RNG mount skins. The fact that this is not a new practice doesnt change anything. Adding more of such items in the gemstore just inflates the issue and makes it worst. I have never and will never support paid, real money RNG. Thats all there is to it.

[StinVec.3621]

@"Gaile Gray.6029"Was the recent and unrelated "Is GW2 Rewarding" poll thread merged into this Mount Adoption Feedback thread intentionally?(the posts are mostly found on pages 52-55)

I expect it was a mistake, but just checking as I'm sure the thread author is wondering where their poll thread went.