Official Mount Adoption Feedback Thread [merged]

[Lanturn.2391]

@"Windu The Forbidden One.6045" said: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.

Another critical difference between this and Black Lion Chests is that most contents of the BLC can be transferred on the trading post, allowing you to buy things you want but didn't get, or sell things you got but didn't want. The mount skins are account bound, so... got a skin you loathe and won't ever use? Too bad, there's no salvaging your 800 gems / $5 / however much gold that is currently.

[Sir Vincent III.1286]

@WingedLass.7456 said:

@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.

You know exactly what you're getting. If you buy the bundle you get all 30 of them.

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.

If you can't afford it, then that's your problem, isn't it? I can't afford a Ferrari, but why would I waste my time complaining about it?

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.

That's your perception. Things in WoW isn't worst. And no, ArenaNet does not want your arm or your hand -- that's you underpricing your limbs. If I have to chop my finger, I better get $100 million for it, so if you want an arm, you better afford $250 Billion. These skins don't cost a hand or an arm, let alone a finger.

[troops.8276]

There seems to be a lot of conflating making profit with by any means necessary. As if being competitive in the market and having ethical business standards are mutually exclusive. This sort of thinking has led to all sorts of problems today and throughout history. This is not radical or unorthodox thinking. Proponents on both the left and the right of the political spectrum have spoken and acted on ethics in business. How they seek to achieve this is very different in approach. I lean to the right on this in many ways but that is by the by. This leads into the idea that if any marketing is 'predatory' then all marketing is. The term 'predatory' though implies there is also 'prey'. The more helpless the 'prey' the more 'predatory' the company or marketing practise appears. Ethics are of course subjective and therefore 'predatory' infers a scale. Are GW2 players 'helpless prey' and Anet 'vicious predators'? I'd say no to both. But I also don't think it would be entirely unfair to say 'somewhat predatory in nature to a lesser degree' for it is hardly a 'highly ethical business decision'. Black and White or Shades of Grey. Little I believe is ever so simple.

[ThenCameThree.4163]

@Lanturn.2391 said:

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.

I does effect you. You should ask why has the development teams time and resource been dedicated to making a rng system for the gemstore. Instead of delivering content that was promised. Or why have they roled out this new rng system, before at least delivering on the things thats promised to come after like raids

[Sir Vincent III.1286]

@troops.8276 said:There seems to be a lot of conflating making profit with by any means necessary. As if being competitive in the market and having ethical business standards are mutually exclusive. This sort of thinking has led to all sorts of problems today and throughout history. This is not radical or unorthodox thinking. Proponents on both the left and the right of the political spectrum have spoken and acted on ethics in business. How they seek to achieve this is very different in approach. I lean to the right on this in many ways but that is by the by. This leads into the idea that if any marketing is 'predatory' then all marketing is. The term 'predatory' though implies there is also 'prey'. The more helpless the 'prey' the more 'predatory' the company or marketing practise appears. Ethics are of course subjective and therefore 'predatory' infers a scale. Are GW2 players 'helpless prey' and Anet 'vicious predators'? I'd say no to both. But I also don't think it would be entirely unfair to say 'somewhat predatory in nature to a lesser degree' for it is hardly a 'highly ethical business decision'. Black and White or Shades of Grey. Little I believe is ever so simple.

Nothing "predatory" about this at all. That's just an exaggeration by inappropriately labeling something they don't like.

If we break this down to $15/month, that's 3 skins per month and after 10 months, you get all the skins. Nothing unethical about that when other MMO charges a $15/mo fee to play their game on top of buying a copy of their expansion. $15/mo for 3 skins is very affordable.

The problem here is that people want everything NOW even though they CAN'T AFFORD IT right now. I prefer it to be 250 gems a piece but I'm not too worked up if they keep the 400 gem price. The randomness is just a fun spin on the process.

[WingedLass.7456]

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@WingedLass.7456 said:

@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.

You know exactly what you're getting. If you buy the bundle you get all 30 of them.

For the bundle, yes. For anything less (like the 10-pack or the 1 contract), no.

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.

If you can't afford it, then that's your problem, isn't it? I can't afford a Ferrari, but why would I waste my time complaining about it?

I'm not complaining about not being able to afford a Ferrari. A Ferrari is like the Jackal, which indeed I can also not afford. That's not my problem. My problem is not being able to afford a shirt I want because it's between a bunch of other shirts and I can only get a random one out of 30, instead of the one shirt I want.

Yes, it's cosmetic. Yes, it's optional. I'm not saying they're obligated to offer it separately. I'm saying that I'd really like to be able to buy it separately, and they don't give me the option to. For people willing to buy the bundle with everything, it's not a problem. For me it is, which I complain about.

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.

That's your perception. Things in WoW isn't worst. And no, ArenaNet does not want your arm or your hand -- that's you underpricing your limbs. If I have to chop my finger, I better get $100 million for it, so if you want an arm, you better afford $250 Billion. These skins don't cost a hand or an arm, let alone a finger.

Hence, me purposely using 'figuratively'. I'm not saying they cost me limbs. I'm saying the comparison is moot because it's still not a good thing. I can say it's like stealing 10 euros vs stealing 100 euros, which is both still not okay, if it makes you feel better about approaching a literal comparison. (Before you continue - yes, I am aware they're also not stealing any money, I'd be spending it voluntarily. That's why it's a comparison.)

[Cobrakon.3108]

Perhaps a compromise is in order. The amount of skins is the reason that this really burns people because u might have to dump a ton of money or gems just to get one skin you wanted. I have two suggestions. 1. Offer smaller bundles based on type of mount or type of effect. You can have packages to unlock all skins of one type of mount or unlock one type of skin (fire, cosmic, etc.) 2. Offer a mystic forge item that would guarantee a particular skin. This item could be obtained through the store or through a collection and used in the mystic forge in combination with the contracts.

[Dovienya.6597]

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@troops.8276 said:There seems to be a lot of conflating making profit with by any means necessary. As if being competitive in the market and having ethical business standards are mutually exclusive. This sort of thinking has led to all sorts of problems today and throughout history. This is not radical or unorthodox thinking. Proponents on both the left and the right of the political spectrum have spoken and acted on ethics in business. How they seek to achieve this is very different in approach. I lean to the right on this in many ways but that is by the by. This leads into the idea that if any marketing is 'predatory' then all marketing is. The term 'predatory' though implies there is also 'prey'. The more helpless the 'prey' the more 'predatory' the company or marketing practise appears. Ethics are of course subjective and therefore 'predatory' infers a scale. Are GW2 players 'helpless prey' and Anet 'vicious predators'? I'd say no to both. But I also don't think it would be entirely unfair to say 'somewhat predatory in nature to a lesser degree' for it is hardly a 'highly ethical business decision'. Black and White or Shades of Grey. Little I believe is ever so simple.

Nothing "predatory" about this at all. That's just an exaggeration by inappropriately labeling something they don't like.

If we break this down to $15/month, that's 3 skins per month and after 10 months, you get all the skins. Nothing unethical about that when other MMO charges a $15/mo fee to play their game on top of buying a copy of their expansion. $15/mo for 3 skins is very affordable.

The problem here is that people want everything NOW even though they CAN'T AFFORD IT right now. I prefer it to be 250 gems a piece but I'm not too worked up if they keep the 400 gem price. The randomness is just a fun spin on the process.

You are making the assumption that the same pack of mounts will remain available for ten months.

[Ohoni.6057]

@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

@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?

"Expected?" Realistically, no, ANet isn't known for actually responding to their community.

But I did hope.

[Larathia.5284]

I love the mount skins themselves, but the cost is bordering on insane.

Anet, you're saying these mount skins (or in one case, just one mount skin - is worth as much real world cash as Heart of Thorns. Or Path of Fire.

I have disposable income and I love this game, and I am willing to pay for All The Mount Skins because hey, I love them, and I love this game. But you really need to rethink this. Not everyone is as income secure. And not everyone likes All The Mount Skins. This should not be an RNG thing. When we want outfits, we buy that outfit. When we want weapon skins, we buy that weapon skin. Sure, sometimes RNGeezus is kind and we get something we've been eyeing in a BLC. But we're not required to gamble for it. Please do not make us gamble for mount skins.

And...really. 2000 gems for a mount skin? Really?

[Ohoni.6057]

@Draygo.9473 said:

@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.

Those are not actual "replies" from Arenanet. Those are community relations "this is what the thread is about" posts. They convey zero information to us players. What we need to have is someone (including Gaile), giving us actual information relevant to this situation, explaining ANet's position on these mounts and what they plan to do about it.

[Ohoni.6057]

@Wolfheart.7483 said:.> @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.

Sometimes companies can act fast to get things done. I don't expect a 100% solution right away, but I would like to see an official statement that they take this issue seriously (not just thread-merging every thread on the topic so that they can safely ignore it), and that they intend to do something about it in future, even if they aren't exactly sure what that something will be.

[Ohoni.6057]

doubled post

[Galactic.6453]

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@troops.8276 said:There seems to be a lot of conflating making profit with by any means necessary. As if being competitive in the market and having ethical business standards are mutually exclusive. This sort of thinking has led to all sorts of problems today and throughout history. This is not radical or unorthodox thinking. Proponents on both the left and the right of the political spectrum have spoken and acted on ethics in business. How they seek to achieve this is very different in approach. I lean to the right on this in many ways but that is by the by. This leads into the idea that if any marketing is 'predatory' then all marketing is. The term 'predatory' though implies there is also 'prey'. The more helpless the 'prey' the more 'predatory' the company or marketing practise appears. Ethics are of course subjective and therefore 'predatory' infers a scale. Are GW2 players 'helpless prey' and Anet 'vicious predators'? I'd say no to both. But I also don't think it would be entirely unfair to say 'somewhat predatory in nature to a lesser degree' for it is hardly a 'highly ethical business decision'. Black and White or Shades of Grey. Little I believe is ever so simple.

Nothing "predatory" about this at all. That's just an exaggeration by inappropriately labeling something they don't like.

If we break this down to $15/month, that's 3 skins per month and after 10 months, you get all the skins. Nothing unethical about that when other MMO charges a $15/mo fee to play their game on top of buying a copy of their expansion. $15/mo for 3 skins is very affordable.

The problem here is that people want everything NOW even though they CAN'T AFFORD IT right now. I prefer it to be 250 gems a piece but I'm not too worked up if they keep the 400 gem price. The randomness is just a fun spin on the process.

Affording it has nothing to do with it. Most people don't want to have all the mounts. They want some specific mounts. People who want all of them buy the whole pack anyway. Why do I have to pay money for things I don't want to try and get something I do want? The entire lootbox system is designed around selling you things you wouldn't buy otherwise, it's their entire point.It's not a fun spin, it's designed to push people's buttons into spending more money. That's why it's predatory. It's just marketing trickery.

[Sylv.5324]

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said: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.

WoW has hundreds of mount skins in-game. GW2 has five. WoW has a dozen-ish skins in its cash shop, and you can pick them individually. GW2 has 30, and you can't.

Come on, bro, you're better than this.

[Miko.4158]

my guess is a middle ground, like other items certain skins become available /seasonally/ with prices 500-1000 with maybe flash sales for the cosmic ones. I don't see anything from anet that says they wont sell them aswell, which makes business sense. Taking away the tickets? cant see it happening why not have the cheaper gamble option for people who don't mind. everyone's happy and I wont feel bad taking my mount around LA.

[VerdantThorn.9345]

I commented yesterday, but I've been ruminating on it and I have more to say. Everything I said before is still true - this is disappointing, it is IMO exploitative and underhanded, I really was hoping that ArenaNet would be better than that - but there's more to my view than that. And, I think it's important this be said, if for no one else than for me.

I have already spent money on this, a significant amount. Not enough to buy all the mounts, because no, but enough to get about half of them. That was $50. I know me, and I know that eventually my completionist itch will have me going back to get the rest. After all, for having dropped that money on it, there's still two skins I want buy haven't unlocked. I'm sure I'm not alone in being in this or a similar circumstance.

So, I'm faced with a choice. I can spend more money than I should to get the rest, or I can just not play the game so I won't be tempted. Maybe it won't be a cold turkey thing, but I'll play less and less, until I don't play at all. Black Lion chests and dyes didn't do this because I can craft most of the dyes I want, and I can play Personal story or do map completion to get Keys - oh, and the loot wasn't that critical anyway. It was nice, but it wasn't something that I was legit looking forward to like mount skins. So now I'm faced with leaving behind 5 years of game play in a game I legit like in order to not spend irresponsibly, since I know that this batch of mounts is only the first... or doing the other thing. That is a really terrible choice.

I love this game, but I also love being able to live a decent life because I didn't spent past my disposable income for a given month. That I have to make that choice is... well, I really don't like it. I hoped you guys were better than that, and I understand there will be many who put this on me rather than you. Those people aren't wrong, and I get that, but the position I'm in isn't unique to me, and in fact I feel like it's fairly common.

This system will be profitable, without a doubt. People will buy into it, and if you keep building on it then at some point the furor will die down, the player base will shrug, and things will return to normal. Only, they won't be normal, because the community you guys focused on creating - an inclusive, fan-centered, welcoming experience that I really legit enjoyed - will at that point be nothing more than a veneer. Oh, and I won't be a part of it any more, and I won't be pushing people to your game any more because I won't be able to recommend it in good conscience.

Please fix this. I understand that you will be financially shooting yourself in the foot in so doing, because there is no other model that is as profitable as this one, but please still do it. Your decision is ultimately out of my hands, but I really do hope you back away from this because I like your game and want to keep playing it.

[troops.8276]

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@troops.8276 said:There seems to be a lot of conflating making profit with by any means necessary. As if being competitive in the market and having ethical business standards are mutually exclusive. This sort of thinking has led to all sorts of problems today and throughout history. This is not radical or unorthodox thinking. Proponents on both the left and the right of the political spectrum have spoken and acted on ethics in business. How they seek to achieve this is very different in approach. I lean to the right on this in many ways but that is by the by. This leads into the idea that if any marketing is 'predatory' then all marketing is. The term 'predatory' though implies there is also 'prey'. The more helpless the 'prey' the more 'predatory' the company or marketing practise appears. Ethics are of course subjective and therefore 'predatory' infers a scale. Are GW2 players 'helpless prey' and Anet 'vicious predators'? I'd say no to both. But I also don't think it would be entirely unfair to say 'somewhat predatory in nature to a lesser degree' for it is hardly a 'highly ethical business decision'. Black and White or Shades of Grey. Little I believe is ever so simple.

Nothing "predatory" about this at all. That's just an exaggeration by inappropriately labeling something they don't like.

If we break this down to $15/month, that's 3 skins per month and after 10 months, you get all the skins. Nothing unethical about that when other MMO charges a $15/mo fee to play their game on top of buying a copy of their expansion. $15/mo for 3 skins is very affordable.

The problem here is that people want everything NOW even though they CAN'T AFFORD IT right now. I prefer it to be 250 gems a piece but I'm not too worked up if they keep the 400 gem price. The randomness is just a fun spin on the process.

Nonsense. Do you really believe the randomness was added just for a bit of fun and not to encourage or entice people to spend a little bit more than they might usually? You also leave so much more of the profit model out of the equation too. Alluding to impatience but ignoring the inbuilt grind to produce that impatience. It is all contrived for one sole purpose. Comparing a subscription based model but ignoring the discrepancy in content, service quality and the other pros and cons that come with it is no better than saying two wrongs make a right.

[Calanthe.3857]

I am not a fan of the random skin loot boxes. I play a few other games that do this, but I have only bought those a few times when I had money to burn, and those games have different business models. I also looked at pictures of the skins and personally found them underwhelming. Most of them are only minor changes to the original. If there were one I really liked I would gladly pay $5-10 to buy it if it were just that one, like with glider or backpack skins.

Seeing this unusual change in gem store practices also makes me wonder if ArenaNet's business model is still working. It made me think that they may need to do an optional patron subscription after all.

[Sir Vincent III.1286]

@WingedLass.7456 said:

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@WingedLass.7456 said:

@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.

You know exactly what you're getting. If you buy the bundle you get all 30 of them.

For the bundle, yes. For anything less (like the 10-pack or the 1 contract), no.

The odds of getting what you want is not even that high.

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.

If you can't afford it, then that's your problem, isn't it? I can't afford a Ferrari, but why would I waste my time complaining about it?

I'm not complaining about not being able to afford a Ferrari. A Ferrari is like the Jackal, which indeed I can also not afford. That's not my problem. My problem is not being able to afford a shirt I want because it's between a bunch of other shirts and I can only get a random one out of 30, instead of the one shirt I want.

Then this is not about affordability. You're actually complaining about the randomness.

Yes, it's cosmetic. Yes, it's optional. I'm not saying they're obligated to offer it separately. I'm saying that I'd really like to be able to buy it separately, and they don't give me the option to. For people willing to buy the bundle with everything, it's not a problem. For me it is, which I complain about.

The option is there. If you don't like the randomness, then buy the bundle. If you can't afford the bundle then try your luck on singles. Or cut the odds to 1:3 by buying the 10 pack.

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.

That's your perception. Things in WoW isn't worst. And no, ArenaNet does not want your arm or your hand -- that's you underpricing your limbs. If I have to chop my finger, I better get $100 million for it, so if you want an arm, you better afford $250 Billion. These skins don't cost a hand or an arm, let alone a finger.

Hence, me purposely using 'figuratively'. I'm not saying they cost me limbs. I'm saying the comparison is moot because it's still not a good thing. I can say it's like stealing 10 euros vs stealing 100 euros, which is both still not okay, if it makes you feel better about approaching a literal comparison. (Before you continue - yes, I

am

aware they're also not stealing any money, I'd be spending it voluntarily. That's why it's a comparison.)

You need to work on your analogy then because those were bad examples.

[Galactic.6453]

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said: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.

It's only 5 bucks per skin if you pay 100 bucks! Wow what a deal! Let's just ignore that you only wanted five of them and would have only paid 25 bucks and just got tricked into spending four times as much for things you didn't need!

[Sir Vincent III.1286]

@Dovienya.6597 said:

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@troops.8276 said:There seems to be a lot of conflating making profit with by any means necessary. As if being competitive in the market and having ethical business standards are mutually exclusive. This sort of thinking has led to all sorts of problems today and throughout history. This is not radical or unorthodox thinking. Proponents on both the left and the right of the political spectrum have spoken and acted on ethics in business. How they seek to achieve this is very different in approach. I lean to the right on this in many ways but that is by the by. This leads into the idea that if any marketing is 'predatory' then all marketing is. The term 'predatory' though implies there is also 'prey'. The more helpless the 'prey' the more 'predatory' the company or marketing practise appears. Ethics are of course subjective and therefore 'predatory' infers a scale. Are GW2 players 'helpless prey' and Anet 'vicious predators'? I'd say no to both. But I also don't think it would be entirely unfair to say 'somewhat predatory in nature to a lesser degree' for it is hardly a 'highly ethical business decision'. Black and White or Shades of Grey. Little I believe is ever so simple.

Nothing "predatory" about this at all. That's just an exaggeration by inappropriately labeling something they don't like.

If we break this down to $15/month, that's 3 skins per month and after 10 months, you get all the skins. Nothing unethical about that when other MMO charges a $15/mo fee to play their game on top of buying a copy of their expansion. $15/mo for 3 skins is very affordable.

The problem here is that people want everything NOW even though they CAN'T AFFORD IT right now. I prefer it to be 250 gems a piece but I'm not too worked up if they keep the 400 gem price. The randomness is just a fun spin on the process.

You are making the assumption that the same pack of mounts will remain available for ten months.

At this point where no deadline was posted, it can remain forever.

[WingedLass.7456]

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

The odds of getting what you want is not even that high.

Nope, not very high odds indeed.

Then this is not about affordability. You're actually complaining about the randomness.

Yes, I am. And I'm not the only one unable (or, in other cases, unwilling) to afford a way to eliminate the randomness from the equation.

Yes, it's cosmetic. Yes, it's optional. I'm not saying they're obligated to offer it separately. I'm saying that I'd really like to be able to buy it separately, and they don't give me the option to. For people willing to buy the bundle with everything, it's not a problem. For me it is, which I complain about.

The option is there. If you don't like the randomness, then buy the bundle. If you can't afford the bundle then try your luck on singles. Or cut the odds to 1:3 by buying the 10 pack.

That's not an option to buy the shirt separately. That's an option to buy all shirts and have 29 of them lying around in the closet, a wasted 116 bucks, and no option to even donate any of them to goodwill. That, or an option to buy a shirt and hope, pray, beg that it'll be the one I want, or keep on spending until I get it (with again, the ones I get before that one lying around in my closet, wasted money, etc.)

Hence, me purposely using 'figuratively'. I'm not saying they cost me limbs. I'm saying the comparison is moot because it's still not a good thing. I can say it's like stealing 10 euros vs stealing 100 euros, which is both still not okay, if it makes you feel better about approaching a literal comparison. (Before you continue - yes, I

am

aware they're also not stealing any money, I'd be spending it voluntarily. That's why it's a comparison.)

You need to work on your analogy then because those were bad examples.

Edit: let's just say the comparisons are personal preferences.

[troops.8276]

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@WingedLass.7456 said:

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@WingedLass.7456 said:

@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.

You know exactly what you're getting. If you buy the bundle you get all 30 of them.

For the bundle, yes. For anything less (like the 10-pack or the 1 contract), no.

The odds of getting what you want is not even that high.

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.

If you can't afford it, then that's your problem, isn't it? I can't afford a Ferrari, but why would I waste my time complaining about it?

I'm not complaining about not being able to afford a Ferrari. A Ferrari is like the Jackal, which indeed I can also not afford. That's not my problem. My problem is not being able to afford a shirt I want because it's between a bunch of other shirts and I can only get a random one out of 30, instead of the one shirt I want.

Then this is not about affordability. You're actually complaining about the randomness.

Yes, it's cosmetic. Yes, it's optional. I'm not saying they're obligated to offer it separately. I'm saying that I'd really like to be able to buy it separately, and they don't give me the option to. For people willing to buy the bundle with everything, it's not a problem. For me it is, which I complain about.

The option is there. If you don't like the randomness, then buy the bundle. If you can't afford the bundle then try your luck on singles. Or cut the odds to 1:3 by buying the 10 pack.

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.

That's your perception. Things in WoW isn't worst. And no, ArenaNet does not want your arm or your hand -- that's you underpricing your limbs. If I have to chop my finger, I better get $100 million for it, so if you want an arm, you better afford $250 Billion. These skins don't cost a hand or an arm, let alone a finger.

Hence, me purposely using 'figuratively'. I'm not saying they cost me limbs. I'm saying the comparison is moot because it's still not a good thing. I can say it's like stealing 10 euros vs stealing 100 euros, which is both still not okay, if it makes you feel better about approaching a literal comparison. (Before you continue - yes, I

am

aware they're also not stealing any money, I'd be spending it voluntarily. That's why it's a comparison.)

You need to work on your analogy then because those were bad examples.

You very neatly explained the problem therein. There is no way to simply buy the actual product you want. It was designed deliberately to be like that. The inherent weakness that is being 'preyed' upon of the customer is being drawn into a game of chance where the odds are statistically against them. Hence people using the 'predatory' analogy.

[TacticalLamp.7056]

As someone who has played since the first beta weekends I just want to say that this community is critical of these things because we all LOVE the game. We don't want to see the game tarnished by debacles like this. Most of us understand that you need to make money to allow us to keep play, to come out with new Living Stories, and expansions. That being said, the current gem store shenanigans have been excessive and comes at the root of a bigger problem. However, the bigger problem is still caught in limbo between what Arena Net needs to be a successful company and what would keep the players happy. We want to give you money. We want to look cool. We don't want to be dragged around with randomness. I feel like a good amount of the community would be happy to pay a monthly fee for this game to help alleviate staggering long term issues. Either way, I feel like addressing this mount skin issue as an independent problem is not going to help GW2 flourish in the future. We must dig deeper.