A Message About the Mount Adoption License

[Tomahawk.7361]

Hmm, that is rather unfortunate. I can no longer continue to financially support anet then. I'd like to support the wonderful skins you've made, but you aren't allowing there to be a better alternative without spending 100 dollars or more. It is principle for me, not money, that I must make this choice.

This should be a lesson in customer satisfaction. A tricked customer may earn you more for one sitting. A happy customer returns forever.

[Jaskar.3071]

@Traveller.7496 said:'d ask people who are also disappointed not to buy these licenses, and instead buy something where you know what you will get, just to vote with your wallet.A very strange logic. It is like: "Merchant, yesterday you sold me pork instead of beef even though you knew I'm jewish! Today I will punish you by buying a barrel of apples from you! Surely you will not trick me into confusing apples to something else. Behold my revenge, muahaha!"

Its not punishment he meansIts showing anet that they can sell the NOrng-stuff better (which they probably dont :( )

[Therzin.5894]

Basically, saying they're too lazy to go back and make changes to the existing system and figure out refunds for those who already bought into it. Maybe even test and see if people give up and buy into it now that players know they won't be making changes. Disappointing.

[OtakuModeEngage.8679]

@Ider.1276 said:

@Traveller.7496 said:'d ask people who are also disappointed not to buy these licenses, and instead buy something where you know what you will get, just to vote with your wallet.A very strange logic. It is like: "Merchant, yesterday you sold me pork instead of beef even though you knew I'm jewish! Today I will punish you by buying a barrel of apples from you! Surely you will not trick me into confusing apples to something else. Behold my revenge, muahaha!"

that's not the point, its not about revenge. When their analysis looks over the report and see's what sold well and what fell flat on its face, they will then determine what methods of sale to use in the future based upon this data. if all the people who don't like the loot box simply buy nothing at all, then the only data ANet will have is on the loot box from people who did buy it. From that they will assume it is popular because it got the most sales. If instead all of us who are unhappy with the loot box buy other things, they will see that the loot box is not popular, doesn't sell well, and that they should not make such items in the future.

[sircaptainsalty.6451]

i really don't think its that big of a deal i liked the RNG system and the price. I don't want to have to pay 2000 gems for a mount skin the adoption license only takes a couple of days for anyone to grind for in game, i don the the RNG aspect makes it shitty maybe offering them in RNG and on the gemstore at a higher price for people who are willing to pay the premium.

[Deihnyx.6318]

@Szaku.1495 said:oh, i quite loved this skin sale and appreciated all three options. having played games which literally use random box sales, i must say this 1/30 was refreshing as well as a delight for me, who simply bought all 30 at once, with the guarantee that you'd get a different skin each time.

in another gamble model game i could've easily spent 6 times that amount (literally 180 boxes in an attempt to get 30) and still may/may not have gotten what i aimed for.

that being said, everything from the quality of each individual skin, to the purpose of the sale, i fully support and thank you for. i challenge you, anet employee, to check my gem purchases in the past year. you wont get fluff and f2p opinions from me.

behind each of these low tier arguments is adamant denial and blatant disregard that this game need be paid for. and say what they want, but had you simply added skins in single purchasable order, sales would decline dramatically. these 3 pay options were FAIR. rest assured knowing that even in these "rng pay to win" games ppl grandstand and preach about, those games are still alive and kicking to this day. people WILL purchase your goods, and for all the ones here bellyaching and threatening because of what they subjectively dont like, objectively speaking, this was a job well done. i undoubtedly feel i got my money's worth 30x with the adoption license and my friends who splurged on skins did as well.

i do think it would've been a nice showing to add say, maybe one free, in game mount skin as well. but as an absolute charity at best. skins are a vanity item. they're not necessary to the gameplay nor does the lack of them take away from the game experience. its a luxury. people pay for luxuries. and far as im concerned, thats the end of that particular discussion. even the "free in game" item skins. the good ones? the ones ppl want? are hella expensive. adding a free in game obtainable skin, imo, should be no less rng than getting precursor weapons from tossing in tons of exotics into the toilet mystic forge. which is funny because as much as i see ppl qqing about rng, its the in game items that are rng based the most.

the work and style your artists produced deserves payment. this isnt these lazy gamers who run hp trains and beg for tips here. this is actual quality work thats earned its due.

as an active gem shopper, my personal opinion is that you should heed the opinions of your market, here. and while i know itd be shooting yourself in the foot to openly admit to it, i highly suggest taking the views and opinions from a biased standpoint. the people who frequently use and invest in your game and gemstore should certainly have a higher priority than those who simply want "more and more" for free and dont care at all about keeping this game and its content rolling out at no loss to its developers.

dont get me wrong, im not suggesting everytime i purchase gems im considering your personal situations at all. im simply saying i understand the give and take to game development and putting out good quality work consistently, then throwing it essentially "down the drain" at ppl who, the vast majority of, insist every possible thing should be free-er to them

the only actual rng boxes on sale have been and always have been the black lion chests, and even with them i have no gripe at all.

as far as the adoption license 30 pack, i would enjoy very much if you were able to keep it the same in the future, provided the quality of the skins also remained this amazing. i think that the 3 pay model was spot on. with any other sale you'd do the exact same; 2k cost for individual skins. gamble and test your luck (of a mere 1/30 odds) for a severely discounted cost. and an in-between markdown price for buying in bulk. maybe at a later date re-release each individual skin out of the 30 pack for 2k a piece. that should quell all the complaints about "rng"

phenomenal work, great job, and thanks to you anet! will be looking forward to living story additions soon.

Thank you so much for this.RNG was always in GW2 and this one was a lot more friendly than a lot of crap that were pulled on us.

And still, people chose to attack this one, making it a lose situation for everyone (you wont get skins for 400 gems, especially not the shinies, and those who enjoyed the adoption wont be able to get discounted skins anymore)

Everyone who says "introduced this RNG in gemstore" right now has obviously not been using the gemstore much, or they would know it's not true, therefore they're not the one bringing money to the game anyway.

@TexZero.7910 said:

@Deihnyx.6318 said:

@TexZero.7910 said:

@zealex.9410 said:I dont believe its fair for the mounts to be on the same price as the glider since theres more work going into them.

Because it's so much more work for them to re-use an already existing asset and charge 2k gems, versus creating entirely new entities for a glider and charging 500 ?

Does pass the eye, or smell test.

The price is irrelevant, they're not breaking their promise that no pay to win items are in the shop.They can price it the way they want, if players think it's not worth it, they won't buy it.

Apple sell their overpriced Iphone X at a price that I consider absolutely ridiculous, I don't buy it. Simple as that.Anet shouldn't be "blamed" for attempts on testing the market, especially not with the price of non RNG items.My point which you clearly missed.....

It's not about work in -> cost ratio which was being presented as a defense.

Hence doesn't pass the eye or smell test. It's clearly a marketing choice from some accountant who thought there was a market for more expensive one off goods.

Didn't miss your point, but still the same answer. They can give it the pricetag they want, it's their game, their skin, their work.The perceived value of the skin doesn't matter. If you don't think it's worth the price, don't buy it, the market will adjust itself as always.

[Ragnarox.9601]

So they sold 120€ pack to whales and figured out there are no many whales left in this game so they made announcement about bad mistake and will sell those rng boxes separately by type of mount soon for a "tiny" price of 400-800 gems (lol), seems like a cash grab, pretty much bad move from anet (and one of many bad moves recently). This is not archeage when you can cash grab everything from mounts to breathing air. Second problem is when I buy 1 licence and get a gryphon skin that I dont even own...pretty lame. You have pretty much unexperienced PR and marketing staff.

[XinHun.9347]

There are more than a couple of things wrong with this statement, if you ask me, and rather than typing a long winded single responds I'd like to break it all down.

• At a time when there’s a lot of debate about random boxes in gaming, we should have anticipated that a new system with a random element would cause alarm.This is not a "misstep", this is an attempt at filler so it looks like you identified an additional misstep.

• We released mount skins with three different purchase models, but with the majority of skins released so far through the Adoption License. It’s easy to perceive this as intentionally channeling you toward randomization.Yes, it is very easy. Especially when the one big skin (warhound) is literally five times as expensive, and frankly (in my opinion), not nearly as good looking as some of the adoption skins.

• The Adoption License is a large set at 30 skins. We stand by the work our artists put into each skin, but it’s understandable to see this as pushing down the odds of acquiring any one skin, and to worry that we might add more skins to lower the chances further.No one questions the work your artists put in. However, everyone uses different mounts. Personally I use just one to ride around (the raptor), and use the others for utility. I don't want skins for the Skimmer, Jackal, or Hopper. I dont even want half of the skins for the Raptor or the Griffon (when I actually get it)

Here are some of the benefits we had in mind when designing the Mount Adoption License:

• You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price.A RANDOM skin. Let me repeat that: A RANDOM skin. There is no choice here. What do I do when I get one of the skins I don't want? Frankly, having looked carefully through all the skins, there are so many for each mount that some still look like each other, so saying they're all unique is also stretching it.This is not to mention that we, as players, have no idea of the odds that your programmers put into these skins. Do they all have an equal chance? Or do you guys skew the odds in such a way that the skins no one really wants get given out before the much more desirable ones?

• It uses a progressive mechanic. Every license gives you a new skin to use and increases the odds of acquiring any remaining skins.Is this a benefit? Are we supposed to thank you for building a system that doesn't allow it to dispense a skin we already have? As far as I've seen there wouldn't be any way to trade them away, so what you're saying here is that we should be thankful that you're not screwing us over any more than you're already doing.

• You’ve requested variety, and this is a way to support variety. Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins. Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin.Variety is great, and I'm all for the amount of skins you released in this pack. I don't claim to be able to look into your finances, and say that this is just bad reasoning, but there are honestly so many more ways you could have made supported this amount of skins financially. Assuming you keep the same price per skin here's a couple of things you also could have done: Package them per mount (all skins for 1 mount together), package them per skin type, sell individual skins at a higher rate (say 600 - 800 gems each).

Microtransactions can be polarizing, and we’ve received both positive and negative feedback on the license. We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made, but I want to confirm to you that our next planned mount skin releases will focus on individual sales like the Reforged Warhound and bundles like the Spooky Mounts Pack. We will not add any skins to the currently available Adoption License, thus not pushing down the odds of acquiring any one skin in that set.Let's be honest here, Mike, you're not changing it because it earns you a boatload of dosh. We all know that. We've all seen the hubs where players are walking around on the most awesome mounts because they may or may not have just thrown you a 100 euros just to get the sweet, sweet Griffon skin. You have changed systems like these around many times before, and simply refunded what the players spent, so they could spent it again, and let's be honest here: You would lose no money over that at all, because every already spent their money to buy your premium currency. All you'd be doing is potentially diminishing your returns on these skins, and that's why you don't change this around to a system where every player can choose their skin.

We appreciate the thoughtful feedback many of you have provided, and that you hold us to high standards for monetization. It’s been a challenging but wonderful goal to support live development and Living World purely through optional microtransactions, and it’s your support that’s made that possible. Thank you.You're welcome.

P.S. I've always enjoyed playing GW2, and I've always put you guys on a pedestal when it came to your microtransactions. It was fair, and it lacked bullshit. With this system, both of those things are now gone. This is a serious black mark on your reputation as one of the fairest and customer friendly MMO's in the industry.

[OmskCamill.6412]

@Abelisk.4527 said:I think that the license isn't as bad as people make it out to be. The difference between this and other RNG lootboxes from other MMOs is that there is a 100% chance of obtaining a unique mount skin, for a pretty cheap price, and best of all you do not need to pay IRL money, if you don't want to to obtain the skins. Other MMOs put in filler items, or bad items that nobody needs at all in lootboxes

Like Black Lion Chests, yes, we know.Anet's target audience is people who don't like other MMOs to begin with.Anet overall is a fundamentally "good" company with business model that I like and support, and over the years they build their loyal and passionate audience with their benevolent business practices.The flipside of which is naturally negative and disproportional response to the attempts of being dicked. Many other companies' audience would be totally OK with that - part of people would shrug and open their purses, another part would shrug and move to another title, case closed.

The Reforged Warhound on the other hand is overpriced. 2k Gems in contrast to your typical 500 Gem glider? Nearly 4x the price compared to a glider.

Warhound's main purpose is not to be sold, making direct sells is a side effect. Its core purpose is exactly to sit on display and be overpriced.It's the purest form of contrast principle. It's a form of exploitation of human cognitive bias that all shops in the world use, ever.

By putting this one skin at 2000 gems price tag, Anet tried to make you compare their 400 gems lottery tickets against that 2000 gems skin, so that you think "wow! Those lottery tickets cost five times less than an actual mount skin! By Ogden's hammer, what savings!" Your perceived expenses go down significantly, because you compare the price to the next-in-line item.

In reality, the real price of a skin formula is simple: 9600 gems divided by the amount of skins that you wanted before purchase. So if you wanted one skin for each of your 5 mounts, you still spend 9600 gems for a bundle of 5 skins (and one skin costs 1920).

@SansSariph.9548 said:

Losing a gamble feels bad. Mike seems to argue that you never "lose" - you always get a brand new skin! We all know that getting a skimmer skin with slight model updates is not the same as getting a griffon with particle effects. The player hoping for the griffon is going to be sad when they get a more simple skin for a mount they use less often.

Saying that you can't lose because worst case scenario you still get a skin that you don't want is like saying you can't lose in a lottery because worst case scenario you still got a scrap of paper. It's hypocricy.

[OmskCamill.6412]

[comment deleted]

[Deihnyx.6318]

@OmskCamill.6412 said:

@SansSariph.9548 said:

Losing a gamble feels bad. Mike seems to argue that you never "lose" - you always get a brand new skin! We all know that getting a skimmer skin with slight model updates is not the same as getting a griffon with particle effects. The player hoping for the griffon is going to be sad when they get a more simple skin for a mount they use less often.

Saying that you can't lose because worst case scenario you still get a skin that you don't want is like saying you can't lose in a lottery because worst case scenario you still got a scrap of paper. It's hypocricy.

Your analogy is true for the BL chests, it's not for mount adoption, where every new try increases the chance of getting what you want.

[Bridget Morrigan.1752]

I think there might be a way to improve the situation with the existing 30 skins without invalidating the purchases already made by players:

1. Any player who has spent more than 9600 gems should have all 30 skins unlocked, and any gems above 9600 should be refunded.
2. Raise price from 400 gems to 800 gems for a mount adoption license.
3. Reduce but do not remove the RNG on the current mount adoption licenses by making it so that players purchase a "Griffon Adoption License" or a "Jackal Adoption License," rendering it so that players have a 1 in 6 chance of getting the skin they want and would only purchase for mount skins they are interested in. (It would still be more economical to buy or have bought the 30 pack in the end, by a long shot.)
4. Make available all mount skins for a short time (a week or two) as individual guaranteed unlocks at 2000 gems each, then return to cycling through them one at a time.
5. Accommodate for any other complaints on a case-by-case basis by refunding gems, unlocking other skins, or guaranteeing future unlocks if customers submit support tickets for other problems not covered here (such as paying 9200 gems in RNG and stopping there because they finally got the skin they wanted, for example).

Just a suggestion.

[Bridget Morrigan.1752]

Oh, and add a way for us to acquire them in game, even if you say you can't deliver on it for a number of months. Just keep us updated on the process.

[Tomahawk.7361]

I see a lot of you prefacing your contractors as 'entitled.' Can I ask something?

Who goes to the store to buy a random bag of groceries? Who goes to the car lot to buy a random car make and model? Who goes to the airport to get a random flight to a random country? Who goes to an art gallery and buys a random painting? Who pays money to get a random carpet? Goods are exchanged for money, I would not buy a pear if it meant I would receive an apple. Is not wanting to spend money because of unpredictability REALLY being 'entitled?' Or is it just a preference for consistency?

[Klonex.4562]

The backlash behind these loot boxes have been ridiculous. Do, I hate loot boxes? absolutely, though everyone needs to understand that this game (A non-subcription model) needs money to be put into it for the upcoming content to be free. I do thank those that have bought the 30 mount skins, they support and provide free content for me and I do thank the development team from A-net that continues to provide us with mount skins (probably the only thing I've been looking forward to since I beat and finished the story for POF).I absolutely hate RNG and this is coming from a person that has killed Teq for 4 years after his re-work(gave up), killed that darn invisible mushroom for months for the invis slippers(gave up), and starting doing the pinata blitz for the infusion and has never received any of their good rewards is just too much(I've also never received a pre-cursor as drop and I've been playing since closed beta). They can't re-work the contracts because so many people have bought them and it would upset many. Those that have opened 10+ contracts to get the skins that they want would feel even more cheated if they re-worked the contract at this point. I myself grinded like crazy for my extra 117 so I could convert them to gems to buy a contract, did I get the mount that I want? of course not but it has at least 4 dye channels now. I'll keep grinding for more mount skins but it's better for me to grind up 100g (400gems) instead of 500g-600g (2000gems-2400gems).I know there will be more mount skins coming out especially for Christmas (it would be a potential waste if they didn't during Christmas)The RNG is still extremely terrible in this game... Sorry, I went off in a tangent. Thank you for future reworks in getting mount skins. Hopefully the prices for future mount skins won't be ridiculously high but not so low that it would cost the company a loss of money, time, and effort in putting new skins in the game.

[Deihnyx.6318]

@"Bridget Morrigan.1752" said:I think there might be a way to improve the situation with the existing 30 skins without invalidating the purchases already made by players:

1. Any player who has spent more than 9600 gems should have all 30 skins unlocked, and any gems above 9600 should be refunded.
2. Raise price from 400 gems to 800 gems for a mount adoption license.
3. Reduce but do not remove the RNG on the current mount adoption licenses by making it so that players purchase a "Griffon Adoption License" or a "Jackal Adoption License," rendering it so that players have a 1 in 6 chance of getting the skin they want and would only purchase for mount skins they are interested in. (It would still be more economical to buy or have bought the 30 pack in the end, by a long shot.)
4. Make available all mount skins for a short time (a week or two) as individual guaranteed unlocks at 2000 gems each, then return to cycling through them one at a time.
5. Accommodate for any other complaints on a case-by-case basis by refunding gems, unlocking other skins, or guaranteeing future unlocks if customers submit support tickets for other problems not covered here (such as paying 9200 gems in RNG and stopping there because they finally got the skin they wanted, for example).

Just a suggestion.

About your 1st, no player has spent more than 9600 gems on it, since it's guaranteed to unlock them all :)

Otherwise, pretty much agree with constructive solutions like this.

[OtakuModeEngage.8679]

@Deihnyx.6318 said:

@"Bridget Morrigan.1752" said:I think there might be a way to improve the situation with the existing 30 skins without invalidating the purchases already made by players:

1. Any player who has spent more than 9600 gems should have all 30 skins unlocked, and any gems above 9600 should be refunded.
2. Raise price from 400 gems to 800 gems for a mount adoption license.
3. Reduce but do not remove the RNG on the current mount adoption licenses by making it so that players purchase a "Griffon Adoption License" or a "Jackal Adoption License," rendering it so that players have a 1 in 6 chance of getting the skin they want and would only purchase for mount skins they are interested in. (It would still be more economical to buy or have bought the 30 pack in the end, by a long shot.)
4. Make available all mount skins for a short time (a week or two) as individual guaranteed unlocks at 2000 gems each, then return to cycling through them one at a time.
5. Accommodate for any other complaints on a case-by-case basis by refunding gems, unlocking other skins, or guaranteeing future unlocks if customers submit support tickets for other problems not covered here (such as paying 9200 gems in RNG and stopping there because they finally got the skin they wanted, for example).

Just a suggestion.

About your 1st, no player has spent more than 9600 gems on it, since it's guaranteed to unlock them all :)

Otherwise, pretty much agree with constructive solutions like this.

suggestion 1 Is only invalid so long as the sale is in place. after the sale is over, to buy all 30, it will cost 12,000gems.

[EMPI.4013]

Just don't make individual mounts 2000 they should be at most 1000

[Jaken.6801]

@Mike O Brien.4613 said:You have valid concerns about random boxes. We hoped that the design of the Mount Adoption License would be reassuring. In this case, we made some missteps:

You got to be kidding with this answer?This is the understatement of the year so far. People were never really on board with the gambling stuff in the first place. Why would they? As soon as you think about it, it is a sick system to monetize your players. Sure, there are some who like the thrill, but that is short term vs. long term.You are introducing so many RNG parts into the gemstore, that it isn't even funny anymore.

• You got the BLC, which is RNG, combined with the BLT (which is split RNG, that is also doubled now, because you raised the price to 2 tickets) + limited RNG items.
• You got RNG minis.
• Now you got RNG mountskins for a system you just introduced into the game.

Right now we have to fear that everything cool and new you introduce has only one purpose: Getting you to buy stuff on the gemstore (mind you, it is not wrong to use these systems that way, but if you go around with it, as if you were swinging a sledgehammer you are indeed just anti-consumer and excuse my french: stupid)

@Mike O Brien.4613 said:

• The Adoption License is a large set at 30 skins. We stand by the work our artists put into each skin, but it’s understandable to see this as pushing down the odds of acquiring any one skin, and to worry that we might add more skins to lower the chances further

Don't hide behind your artists. That is the wrong attitude to go in the digital market. These skins aren't worth the same, as you blatantly showed with the 2000gems skin you put out alongside the new pack.Furthermore, you seem to have no clear pricepoint on how to price your stuff, as of right now, most of it is designed to have you spend at least 20$ in gems, if you want more than 2 pieces out of the store. Things that were formerly priced at about 300-400 gems, now get the 500-600 gems treatment, which means if it is a split set, you won't get by with a nice and simple 10$ investment. No, you have to fork over more than you want.If this isn't manipulating, I don't know.

@Mike O Brien.4613 said:Here are some of the benefits we had in mind when designing the Mount Adoption License:

• You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price.
• It uses a progressive mechanic. Every license gives you a new skin to use and increases the odds of acquiring any remaining skins.
• You’ve requested variety, and this is a way to support variety. Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins. Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin.

If you call these befefits that should outweigh the downsides, I want you to go back and learn about consumer health, consumer benefits and most likely being a decent human beeing, because what you are saying does in no way adress the problems people have.*Yes we wanted variety and naturally not all skins will sell equaly, but forcing them upon us via RNG is wrong. It's a digital market, you only have server costs and one time creation costs. Are you telling me you pay your artists on the amount their piece sells? Even if one skin doesn't sell well, it will raise the status of another. It's simple psycholgy.

• How is that progressive? If I get my skin at the first try, there is no progress. If I get it at my last, it's mostly frustration and lots of money lost. Sure I increase the odds, but not by progressing. I sacrifice time, money, paticence towards an unclear and blurry goal. By that I can call playing the ticketgame at a fair "progression". Buying all tickets to get the biggest price, will cost me more than buying it outright. Sure, I progress with every ticket, but it is not worth it.
• Who cares about a new mount skin, if I don't use it? It's like getting a pair of ugly socks from my grandma and have to pay for them myself. Who would do that?

I gladly pay 400 gems for a skin and 1600gems (maybe 2000gems) for a grabpack. This is a fair price, because I can choose which one will take (btw. I hate ever price for single items over 400gems, if its just a cosmetic thing and no bundle)

@Mike O Brien.4613 said:Microtransactions can be polarizing, and we’ve received both positive and negative feedback on the license. We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made, but I want to confirm to you that our next planned mount skin releases will focus on individual sales like the Reforged Warhound and bundles like the Spooky Mounts Pack. We will not add any skins to the currently available Adoption License, thus not pushing down the odds of acquiring any one skin in that set.

Your unwillingless to even think about a solution and change to the problem just shows how blind you are to the matter:

• Just change the thing to choose your skin
• Everyone who bought all, did so with a discount now, they are happy
• Everyone who gambled and lost, should just get the option to choose new ones, based on the amount of licenses they aquired.There problem solved. If you throw in refund for people who didn't want all the skins they got, you make even more happy, but I guess that wouldn't be beneficial for you.

We appreciate the thoughtful feedback many of you have provided, and that you hold us to high standards for monetization. It’s been a challenging but wonderful goal to support live development and Living World purely through optional microtransactions, and it’s your support that’s made that possible. Thank you.

Look MO, know you want to spin it in a good way, but there is no way you will get out of the predatory microtransaction zone. Your statement completly fails on the basic level to adress any concerns that have been build up over the past few year.i mean, I would have spend much more money on the store personaly, if you put the BLC weapons in weapon crates, alongside the BLC. 200gems a pop, no biggie. The rate you introduced these skins quickly outrun my ability to spend anyway, so getting a full set and getting some for free via collections is quickly diminished, because old skins cost several tickets.

However, you will loose more and more support this way. This was marketing speak in it's worst form and you know it. Why are you even defending this? This isn't good for the publicity, for the artists that worked on it, the company or even for you.

[Ayumi Spender.1082]

@Deihnyx.6318 said:

@"Bridget Morrigan.1752" said:I think there might be a way to improve the situation with the existing 30 skins without invalidating the purchases already made by players:

1. Any player who has spent more than 9600 gems should have all 30 skins unlocked, and any gems above 9600 should be refunded.
2. Raise price from 400 gems to 800 gems for a mount adoption license.
3. Reduce but do not remove the RNG on the current mount adoption licenses by making it so that players purchase a "Griffon Adoption License" or a "Jackal Adoption License," rendering it so that players have a 1 in 6 chance of getting the skin they want and would only purchase for mount skins they are interested in. (It would still be more economical to buy or have bought the 30 pack in the end, by a long shot.)
4. Make available all mount skins for a short time (a week or two) as individual guaranteed unlocks at 2000 gems each, then return to cycling through them one at a time.
5. Accommodate for any other complaints on a case-by-case basis by refunding gems, unlocking other skins, or guaranteeing future unlocks if customers submit support tickets for other problems not covered here (such as paying 9200 gems in RNG and stopping there because they finally got the skin they wanted, for example).

Just a suggestion.

About your 1st, no player has spent more than 9600 gems on it, since it's guaranteed to unlock them all :)

Otherwise, pretty much agree with constructive solutions like this.

You've either not read or was skipping over them or something.But I've seen at LEAST 5 people on this board mentioning having 1 or 2 of those adoption things left over.To even get more than the mounts available mean they've spent more than 9600.

[OmskCamill.6412]

@Deihnyx.6318 said:

@"Bridget Morrigan.1752" said:I think there might be a way to improve the situation with the existing 30 skins without invalidating the purchases already made by players:

1. Any player who has spent more than 9600 gems should have all 30 skins unlocked, and any gems above 9600 should be refunded.

About your 1st, no player has spent more than 9600 gems on it, since it's guaranteed to unlock them all :)

I bet there were. The whole RNG box system is a predatory tactics designed to make you spend more money that you initially wanted. The "every new try increases the chance of getting what you want" that you mentioned is here exactly for this. And I am 100% sure that there are people who initially bought some licences, but then bought more complulsively. 9600 gems is the minimum price to unlock all of them, not the maximum.

[MetalGirl.2370]

If in the future it'll be bundles and individual skins, at least I hope individual ones won't cost 2000 gems like Reforged does.

[TexZero.7910]

@Deihnyx.6318 said:Didn't miss your point, but still the same answer. They can give it the pricetag they want, it's their game, their skin, their work.The perceived value of the skin doesn't matter. If you don't think it's worth the price, don't buy it, the market will adjust itself as always.

Yes, but again not acknowledging the point. People need to stop falling on the sword for anet and coming up with lazy excuses to defend them. I'm all for them setting whatever fantastical price they desire, just don't spew utter non-sense about it being a cost related to the effort going into the project because it can quite easily be debunked.

[Oldirtbeard.9834]

@MetalGirl.2370 said:If in the future it'll be bundles and individual skins, at least I hope individual ones won't cost 2000 gems like Reforged does.

I won't buy that either.

I'll stick with Spooky Mount type packages, at least there all in a matching set, they have some modest particle effect and they have 4 dye channels.

[Chadramar.8156]

@Erasculio.2914 said:I'm not so sure about that one. A pack consisting on nothing but making the standard skins fully dyable, with all four channels available, would likely sell very well.

Yes. I'm one of the people who have already stated that they would happily buy such a skin. I do not care about the silly MMO-y sparklefarts stuff, and instead want something that looks like it actually fits into the world and lore. Which is also why I would have bought some of the "bad, lazy" skins from this gambling fiasco if it hadn't been a gambling fiasco.

The sparklefarts fans are more obvious because it's hard to not notice an all neon pink griffon madly whizzing around for maximum "looklooklookatme!!!11111" potential. But put a less immersion-breaking and less eyestrain-causing skin out there at a lower price than the effect-laden ones that require more time to create, and I don't see why it wouldn't sell.