Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]

[Ohoni.6057]

So 48 hours and several thousand posts later, not a SINGLE official response on this topic. Where are you, Arena Net?

[CrimsonChaos.4392]

I love this game a lot, but i don't love this mount skin system. There are only a few skins that I want to buy from these 30 skins. Also you only have 5 mounts, its not like you're going to be using all the skins all the time and some of the mounts you just don't use as much as some of the others. I would spend gems on skins, (i've gotten quite a few outfits from the stores as well as other cosmetic items), however I will not spend gems on chance of getting the skin I want. 1 out of 30 chance of getting the one you want is way too low for the cost. If you sold each skin separately for maybe 600 to 800 gems I, and I'm sure others would gladly buy them. I know enough and played enough of these chance/gacha games to know that this specific mount skin system setup doesn't work well. The price and chance need to be reasonable and this just isn't. People like sure things, not so much chance, and if it is chance, they want it to be at least worth it. The Black Lion Chest aren't bad and you generally get at least something good or worthwhile (and at least 3 things) but here if you buy this and you don't get the skin you want then you get nothing really. Unless this mount skin system changes I won't be spending any gems on any mount skins.

[Zoltar MacRoth.7146]

@CrimsonChaos.4392 said:Also as far as I know you can't preview any of the mounts skins, (got to look for the pictures online, unless someone knows how to find them ingame?). I'm sure people would be much eager to spend if they actually got to preview them in the gem store and see what they could get. Unless this mount skin system changes I won't be spending any gems on any mount skins.

You can preview them in your Hero Panel, in the wardrobe section I think, near gliders. There's a tab for mounts.

[Urgi.3504]

@Ohoni.6057 said:So 48 hours and several thousand posts later, not a SINGLE official response on this topic. Where are you, Arena Net?

Waiting for a few thousand more.

[LanfearShadowflame.3189]

@Ohoni.6057 said:So 48 hours and several thousand posts later, not a SINGLE official response on this topic. Where are you, Arena Net?

You expected a response beyond "we're reading your comments"? Really?

[Draygo.9473]

@Gaile Gray.6029 said:Hey there,

I've read every post in this thread, and am keeping an eye on several others, as well. I've noted several areas of general feedback and have shared quotes and suggestion in a community report, which is accessible to everyone at ArenaNet.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, concerns, suggestions, and more!

@Gaile Gray.6029 said:Sorry for the delay. Things went a little weird and I thought I had a disappearing thread here. All should be fine now.

As far as whether we need more feedback: As long as players want to offer their thoughts, we want to read them. I have already submitted a detailed report on the feedback, including many areas of concern, individual and aggregate suggestions, and much more. I've also had conversations on the topic, as well. So this is "in the system" so to speak, but anyone else who wants to share their thoughts is more than welcome to do so!

There have been two replys so far from Gaile Gray.

These things do take time for most companies, I do expect to see something by EOD Fri.

[OtakuModeEngage.8679]

@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

@OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:

@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

@OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:

@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

@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.

I agree with all of this. Only, voting with your wallet but not your voice isnt enough. Lets say they sell 700 of these skins, there was a total of 3,000 that would have been sold if players could choose which one they wanted rather than have to pay into a RNG system, but because they made it RNG they only sold 700. Thats a loss of 2,300 sales they could have had! Now if everyone who would have bought some, but didnt, deciding to vote with only their wallet and not their voice, then there is no way for ANet to know how many sales they lost. They will only see the 700 that are, and not the 3,000 that could have been. And then pat themselves on the back for a successful endeavor, whats more they will take this "success" to heart and continue to use similar practices in the future, and thus continue to loose out on total sales in the future. Thats why its important to speak up, and not only votw with your wallet, but your voice as well.

Oh, I wasn't implying anyone shouldn't voice their opinion. I do think people are/were overreacting a bit, which tends to get their opinions jumped on and even potentially ignored by those that should see it. Unfortunately there has been a lot of salt spewed over this addition to the game, and a lot of people are up in arms over it. People forget that you can give scathing feedback in a polite manner. Which achieves your goal of being heard, expressing your ire, and being perfectly within the rules. Its an art form. Too many people just start screaming, rolling on the floor, and demanding people lose their jobs.

Fair point, I dont care for the "immoral", and "greedy" arguements popping up here. All the bashing and name calling is uncalled for. They are a business trying to make money, as all business make money. I disagree with their methods, but need we insult them? Completely uncalled for. Are they greedy? Ive never known a business that wasnt, the whole point of a business is to make as much money as possible. Is it immoral for a business to be greedy and try to make as much money as possible? Absolutely not, if it were, then it would be immoral to open a business in the first place, as once again, the purpose of a business is to do just that. Continuing such a debate only derails the thread, makes you appear childish, and causes your original stance/request, what may at first have been amicable, fall on death ears.

I'm going to throw 'predatory' into that list, but that's just my opinion. I do concur though; for the most part we seem to be on the same page. As the saying goes "Businesses are in business to make money"

That too, didnt intentionally leave it out. Everyone who has ever worked in marketing, knows that everything from the way merchandice is oranized on a shelf, to the color schemes painted throughout the building, and even the genre, pace, and tempo of the music played on the loudspeaker is meant to unconciously comvince you to stay longer, buy more. Spend more money. Business have thousand of marketing technices targeting certain consumers and buying habbits. McDonalds, which is a hamberger place, sells fried chicken in the Philippines, just about every American restraunt does. Even if they are specifically targeting people who "pressure buy" it is simply a marketing technique, one that every single store in the world uses. Seasonal drinks at starbucks, temporary sales and discounts, limited time promotional disney pen that will never be sold again. This is not preditory, its marketing. Or prehaps you could say all marketing is preditory, either way, it is the way of money. And even if it were immoral, it would simply be something every corperation is guilty of.

[StinVec.3621]

@Wolfheart.7483 said:.> @UncleHank.8160 said:

I was planning to ask for gem cards for my birthday and christmas. I've decided against that after seeing this debacle.

I don't understand statements like this. You disagree with a gem store item so you decide not to buy

any

items out of principle. At first glance, that may look reasonable. In the real world, however, if you stopped buying products from every company that made decisions you don't agree with you would probably not buy products from any company, anywhere, ever again.

Exactly...If everyone (or enough) stood to their principles and didn't give these companies their money then these companies would be forced to behave and conduct business in an ethical manner with their consumers' interests in mind to stay in business or disappear and be replaced by companies that do.

[Wolfheart.7483]

.> @Ohoni.6057 said:

So 48 hours and several thousand posts later, not a SINGLE official response on this topic. Where are you, Arena Net?

Having worked at several companies around the size of Anet, responses to things like this don't just happen. There are meetings, reviews, approvals, etc. Especially considering that NCSoft would come into those conversations, too, one would assume, that makes it more complex.

I am not saying I like it, I have always hated working in the corporate world because it felt like it took forever to get some things done. But it is what it is.

[aschmois.6742]

Not buying gems anymore if this is the way ANet is going to continue. I liked paying gems for cosmetics that I wanted. I guess the only money you'll get from me now is expansions and content.

[SmirkDog.3160]

For the same price as all these skins I can buy the new expac for FFXIV for me and my partner and a month of game time each. Guess what I'm doing until ANet fixes their mistakes.

[LanfearShadowflame.3189]

@OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:

@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

@OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:

@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

@OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:

@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

@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.

I agree with all of this. Only, voting with your wallet but not your voice isnt enough. Lets say they sell 700 of these skins, there was a total of 3,000 that would have been sold if players could choose which one they wanted rather than have to pay into a RNG system, but because they made it RNG they only sold 700. Thats a loss of 2,300 sales they could have had! Now if everyone who would have bought some, but didnt, deciding to vote with only their wallet and not their voice, then there is no way for ANet to know how many sales they lost. They will only see the 700 that are, and not the 3,000 that could have been. And then pat themselves on the back for a successful endeavor, whats more they will take this "success" to heart and continue to use similar practices in the future, and thus continue to loose out on total sales in the future. Thats why its important to speak up, and not only votw with your wallet, but your voice as well.

Oh, I wasn't implying anyone shouldn't voice their opinion. I do think people are/were overreacting a bit, which tends to get their opinions jumped on and even potentially ignored by those that should see it. Unfortunately there has been a lot of salt spewed over this addition to the game, and a lot of people are up in arms over it. People forget that you can give scathing feedback in a polite manner. Which achieves your goal of being heard, expressing your ire, and being perfectly within the rules. Its an art form. Too many people just start screaming, rolling on the floor, and demanding people lose their jobs.

Fair point, I dont care for the "immoral", and "greedy" arguements popping up here. All the bashing and name calling is uncalled for. They are a business trying to make money, as all business make money. I disagree with their methods, but need we insult them? Completely uncalled for. Are they greedy? Ive never known a business that wasnt, the whole point of a business is to make as much money as possible. Is it immoral for a business to be greedy and try to make as much money as possible? Absolutely not, if it were, then it would be immoral to open a business in the first place, as once again, the purpose of a business is to do just that. Continuing such a debate only derails the thread, makes you appear childish, and causes your original stance/request, what may at first have been amicable, fall on death ears.

I'm going to throw 'predatory' into that list, but that's just my opinion. I do concur though; for the most part we seem to be on the same page. As the saying goes "Businesses are in business to make money"

That too, didnt intentionally leave it out. Everyone who has ever worked in marketing, knows that everything from the way merchandice is oranized on a shelf, to the color schemes painted throughout the building, and even the genre, pace, and tempo of the music played on the loudspeaker is meant to unconciously comvince you to stay longer, buy more. Spend more money. Business have thousand of marketing technices targeting certain consumers and buying habbits. McDonalds, which is a hamberger place, sells fried chicken in the Philippines, just about every American restraunt does. Even if they are specifically targeting people who "pressure buy" it is simply a marketing technique, one that every single store in the world uses. Seasonal drinks are starbucks, limited time promotional disney pen that will never be sold again. This is not preditory, its marketing. Or prehaps you could say all marketing is preditory, either way, it is the way of money. And even if it were immoral, it would simply be something every corperation is guilty of.

Right, it is either all predatory, or none of if it is. It's all very carefully choreographed to increase the likeliness of the customer spending money. I mean, people just need to step back and think about it. How often do people go into a store for an "item or two" and end up walking out with a whole basket? Quite often, if not the majority of the time. Why? Because things were placed "just so" along their path to that common "item or two" which triggered that "oh and I should probably pick up this" or the "that looks good" reaction, thus generating more sales. Its just smart marketing.

[Erulogos.2591]

I see many people complaining about the price, which is steep if you want to be sure to get the skins you like, but really that isn't the primary issue to me. The primary issue isn't event the gambling, I've indulged in Black Lion chests now and then. The primary issue is the medium to high possibility of being stuck with something I will never use. Too many of the new skins are in the 'meh' to 'ick' range for me, and since I can't even toss them on the TP they are utterly useless. I won't stop supporting the game, but the release of these mount skins is just a fail in my book.

[troops.8276]

Has The Forth Wall Been Broken?

What I mean by this is are the massive outpouring of views, often emotive, here and elsewhere accountable to, at some internal level, people questioning if the game is truly here to give them enjoyment or are they here purely and solely just to make the game money.

This run of comments in particular sums it up for me.

@starlinvf.1358 said:

@PopeUrban.2578 said:

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@PopeUrban.2578 said:GW2 expansions sell poorly because they're not the primary revenue model, and thus, extremely lackluster in terms of the play/reward loop and content specifically to drive players to the gem store. The LS is specifically designed to drive itinerant players to log in during release windows... to get their eyes on the gem store sales that come with them. The currency exchange exists specifically to make players feel like they can "earn" gem store rewards while actually providing players the ability to pass the buck to someone else while requiring them to remain engaged so that they'll hopefully get sick of farming and buy their own gems.

If expansions sell poorly then it means less profit from the gem store too. Glider skins are pointless for those who don't have Heart of Thorns and Mounts skins are pointless for those who don't have Path of Fire. More players paying for the expansions = more money from the gem store.What they are doing now with the gem store policy is trying to milk more money out of those who already paid for the expansions. Instead I said to focus on turning more players paying customers, therefore more players get access to the gem store items for expansion-specific items = more profit for Anet.The more players buy Path of Fire, the more visibility to the Mount Adoption deal = more profits. And if there is a larger paying playerbase, then I hope the gem store deals will also be better, since they won't have to deal with fewer players and use RNG to get more money.

Alternate idea:

Take all those people working on gem store content and "free" updates. Fold them in to one big team tasked with making one cohesive product. Sell the product for full price with confidence because its worth the money and capable of keeping your player base consistently engaged long enough to sell them another expansion. Let the free players see that they're getting great value for the single purchase price of expansions without being nickel and dimed or forced to farm so that someone else can be nickel and dimed. Explain to shareholders that when you actually focus on making a higher quality product that serves the customer's needs it results in positive buzz and free press that reduces your required marketing budget. Explain to them that exploiting your customers by deliberately selling them disappointment is only effective in the short term and results in high player churn that in turn makes it very difficult to acquire new customers because of negative word of mouth.

Or hey just build them a time machine and let them talk to Anets founders about why they left their jobs to create GW1 in the first place, and remind them how successful it was using exactly that business model before they started exploring microtransactions.

"That only makes us a LOT of money..... but its not ALL the money".

And on the mention of share holders..... realize that share holders don't care about quality products, reputation, or consumer satisfaction. Once you go beyond the venture capitalists, the only thing share holders care about are quarterly gains. Are they making money "Right now"?, and is there going to be MORE money next quarter? Remember this is built on a trade system that operates in a scale of Micro seconds, responding to changes as little as a fraction of a cent......so having money sitting in a company stock, waiting for it to raise over the course of a few months is about old school as it gets. If share holders are seeing losses, and are not convinced that will turn around any time soon, many will pull their investment and put it into something else. That then becomes an avalanche effect of other investors getting spooked, pulling their investment as well, and the activity drives the share price down. When its hit low enough, thats when the vultures swoop in, buy up as much as they can, and use whatever control afforded by their stake to either instate a new board of directors; or otherwise do some shady s*** to pump and dump at best, or dismantle the company to sell assets for a profit at worst. While NCsoft might be too strong at the moment to have it happen to them directly, it not unheard of for publishers to sell their studios and/or IPs to other companies, if the offers are enticing enough.

What you're also failing to realize is what Microstransactions have done to quarterly earnings...... unlike other forms of content that are exchanged at a set price, and have a finite cycle of consumption, Micro-transactions have no upper limit on what it can sell, and can turn a ludicrous profit for a fraction of the effort. I'm not sure if it was EA or Activision that figured this out first..... but one of the directors of a yearly franchise realized that you could RESELL the same item in one year's edition of a game to player via microtransactions in next year's edition of a game, and call it a "Classic" skin or item.

The method GW2 has is more akin to the Fashion industry, but it works on the same overall concept....... just create something of low cost, and sell it to the masses; then keep doing that in a seasonal fashion. You also have the option to sell older content as "limited time offers" to newer players who haven't bought it yet, thus turning your "Churn rate" into a viable profit model. Thats how so many F2P make the kind of money they do..... the revolving door to continually bring in new "customers" to buy all the same things existing players already bought. Now combine this with the surge cycles of Event generators such as expansion releases to recapture returning player, and send them through the door for another round. The beauty of this setup is you don't need a constant stream of content to maintain retention.... you just shift all your focus to "recapturing", and use the memory gap (plus the refreshed novelty of the event) to only have to produce content in small bursts. What do you think the new Living world format is all about? More importantly, why do you think they implemented long tie gates on "end game rewards"?.... its to keep the those that do stick around busy, while slowing their content consumption rate.

The variance, and often self contradictory nature, of the statements around the internet at the moment over this just seem beyond reasonable, even given the larger issue of where the gaming industry is going as a whole.

[Cronos.6532]

@OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:

@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

@OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:

@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

@OtakuModeEngage.8679 said:

@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

@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.

I agree with all of this. Only, voting with your wallet but not your voice isnt enough. Lets say they sell 700 of these skins, there was a total of 3,000 that would have been sold if players could choose which one they wanted rather than have to pay into a RNG system, but because they made it RNG they only sold 700. Thats a loss of 2,300 sales they could have had! Now if everyone who would have bought some, but didnt, deciding to vote with only their wallet and not their voice, then there is no way for ANet to know how many sales they lost. They will only see the 700 that are, and not the 3,000 that could have been. And then pat themselves on the back for a successful endeavor, whats more they will take this "success" to heart and continue to use similar practices in the future, and thus continue to loose out on total sales in the future. Thats why its important to speak up, and not only votw with your wallet, but your voice as well.

Oh, I wasn't implying anyone shouldn't voice their opinion. I do think people are/were overreacting a bit, which tends to get their opinions jumped on and even potentially ignored by those that should see it. Unfortunately there has been a lot of salt spewed over this addition to the game, and a lot of people are up in arms over it. People forget that you can give scathing feedback in a polite manner. Which achieves your goal of being heard, expressing your ire, and being perfectly within the rules. Its an art form. Too many people just start screaming, rolling on the floor, and demanding people lose their jobs.

Fair point, I dont care for the "immoral", and "greedy" arguements popping up here. All the bashing and name calling is uncalled for. They are a business trying to make money, as all business make money. I disagree with their methods, but need we insult them? Completely uncalled for. Are they greedy? Ive never known a business that wasnt, the whole point of a business is to make as much money as possible. Is it immoral for a business to be greedy and try to make as much money as possible? Absolutely not, if it were, then it would be immoral to open a business in the first place, as once again, the purpose of a business is to do just that. Continuing such a debate only derails the thread, makes you appear childish, and causes your original stance/request, what may at first have been amicable, fall on death ears.

I'm going to throw 'predatory' into that list, but that's just my opinion. I do concur though; for the most part we seem to be on the same page. As the saying goes "Businesses are in business to make money"

That too, didnt intentionally leave it out. Everyone who has ever worked in marketing, knows that everything from the way merchandice is oranized on a shelf, to the color schemes painted throughout the building, and even the genre, pace, and tempo of the music played on the loudspeaker is meant to unconciously comvince you to stay longer, buy more. Spend more money. Business have thousand of marketing technices targeting certain consumers and buying habbits. McDonalds, which is a hamberger place, sells fried chicken in the Philippines, just about every American restraunt does. Even if they are specifically targeting people who "pressure buy" it is simply a marketing technique, one that every single store in the world uses. Seasonal drinks at starbucks, temporary sales and discounts, limited time promotional disney pen that will never be sold again. This is not preditory, its marketing. Or prehaps you could say all marketing is preditory, either way, it is the way of money. And even if it were immoral, it would simply be something every corperation is guilty of.

The name-calling is definitely uncalled for, though ArenaNet's marketing is historically rather lamentable.

[GreyWolf.8670]

@pah.4931 said:

@GreyWolf.8670 said:

@pah.4931 said:

@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.

But it's not greed. It's business. If this was the most played MMO with a sub, you'd have a point. But it's not. It's an aging game in a declining genre. It needs to show growth or it's harder to convince "the masters" to keep it running.

(I mean. Sure, it could be greed. But I am arguing that it probably isn't.)

((ask yourself ... if you ran a company, would you not take more money????))

It's greed. They could have just as easily put the separate skins on the store. They just wanted the capture the percentage of people that didn't get the skin they wanted the first time and make them pay more.

Wanting more money is NOT the definition of greed. You could easily work for $8 per hour. Do you? Or are you greedy? You are greedy aren't you!? (see.)

Maybe they are preventing layoffs by doing this. Is it greedy to keep people with families employed and thousands of people enjoying a video game? Hmmm.

Yes, it is the definition of greed. This really isn't difficult. My income and what I desire to spend have nothing to factoring into the definition of a word.

greed[ɡrēd]NOUN

intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.

[Spurnshadow.3678]

@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.

You can buy dyes and weapon skins on the TP

[Blandshee.9045]

Just to throw my two cents at the already bursting pile, I'm absolutely sickened by this lootbox trash. They're predatory and anti-consumer, and its incredibly disappointing that ArenaNet has stooped so low as to jump on the disgusting-moneymaking-scheme-of-the-month train.

The increased amount of account-bound drops from Black Lion Chests were bad enough, and this on top of it is so disheartening.

[Sir Vincent III.1286]

The hysteria over the GW2 mount skin is laughable. While WoW sells a single skin for $25, GW2 sells a skin for $5 (400 gems). $4 per skin if you buy the bundle.

[Calador.2804]

I know this post is not offering any solution or suggestions. I just want to say that I’m disappointed in this cash grab mentality that ANET has chosen to join in with. The sad part is that some of the developers are probably as disgusted as some of us are but were forced to implement this none the less.

Some economist probably ran the numbers and ANET decided they did not care how many users they would lose, since the ones that stick around will happily play the RNG odds and ANET will come out with a net positive.

[Dreams.3128]

@GreyWolf.8670 said:

@pah.4931 said:

@GreyWolf.8670 said:

@pah.4931 said:

@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.

But it's not greed. It's business. If this was the most played MMO with a sub, you'd have a point. But it's not. It's an aging game in a declining genre. It needs to show growth or it's harder to convince "the masters" to keep it running.

(I mean. Sure, it could be greed. But I am arguing that it probably isn't.)

((ask yourself ... if you ran a company, would you not take more money????))

It's greed. They could have just as easily put the separate skins on the store. They just wanted the capture the percentage of people that didn't get the skin they wanted the first time and make them pay more.

Wanting more money is NOT the definition of greed. You could easily work for $8 per hour. Do you? Or are you greedy? You are greedy aren't you!? (see.)

Maybe they are preventing layoffs by doing this. Is it greedy to keep people with families employed and thousands of people enjoying a video game? Hmmm.

Yes, it is the definition of greed. This really isn't difficult. My income and what I desire to spend have nothing to factoring into the definition of a word.

greed[ɡrēd]NOUN

intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.

Then, we, as humans, are all greedy by definition.

[WingedLass.7456]

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

While WoW sells a single skin for $25, GW2 sells a skin for $5 (400 gems). $4 per skin if you buy the bundle.

1) So does GW2. You have seen the new Jackal, right? Bright side? You know exactly what you're getting.

2) Again, I cannot afford to buy all of them for the few skins I want. It's a bargain, if you get to choose. We don't get to choose, I don't care for most of them, and so I can't/won't get any of them. I complain because there is a few I do want, and there's no reasonable way for me to get them.

3) Comparisons to other games where 'things are worse' don't do much to me. Figuratively speaking, I'll still complain about someone chopping off my hand, rather than chopping off my arm. Thanks, but just because it could've been worse doesn't mean it's okay.

[Windu The Forbidden One.60]

I personally think the price is just too high. I get that lootbox gambling is a big thing in gaming right now, and it probably won't go away anytime soon but In order to get all of them I would need to spend 9600 gems, I can't afford that right now, so by the time I can, buying all of them it will be 10.500 gems. That's a whopping 120 euro's or 3805 gold with the current exchange rate, which is just too much. Especially considering over half of those skins, I will probably not even use. Of all the skins there are only about 6-7 that I really want.

So I would be wasting a lot of money with the current selling method knowing that over half of the acquired products will not even be used. You might argue that the same goes for Black Lion Chests/Keys, but those keys are significantly cheaper. Paying 400 gems for a product that statistically has a very small chance to give me what I want is aggravating to say the least.

If we could choose what skin we want to buy, but increase the price to like 800 gems I would have bought them in a heartbeat.

[Alga.6498]

I can't find my first comment, it's in here somewhere, but oh well, :)

I actually bought the 9,600 gems adopt license contract, I simply love it!!! Love, love love how some of the mounts got face-lifts, different wings, tails, spikes, etc. I specially love the Phoenix looking Griffion, :heart: :love:I enjoy to use all of the mount-skins, since I've lots of characters, I love to use the variations. Different styles, dyes, mount-skins, characters, weapons!

I've always been a loyal supporter, monthly buying something new in the gemshop or just buying gems --> to gold since I don't have the time to farm that much gold.I enjoy to use my bank card and buy the gold to buy the stuff I want and need, I enjoy to play the game how I want to instead of farming the heck out of it and be bored/tired of it.

I also liked how you are not getting duplicates! +1 for that, ANet! =)

[Lanturn.2391]

Surely, everything that needs to be said has already been said at this point, but I wanted to add my name to the voices of dissent speaking out against this gambling, RNG-based, "loot box" purchase system.

Since I don't purchase microtransactions and this current system is only for cosmetic effects, this doesn't affect me personally, but it bodes poorly for other aspects of the game's future.