Jump to content
  • Sign Up

A Message About the Mount Adoption License


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hi, We made a commitment to you in March 2012 that we’d fund GW2 live development through non-pay-to-win microtransactions. We try different ideas, but we always hold true to that commitment. We’ve be

I really don't know if I'm going to keep playing, or buying, when you guys are still gouging folks with this mount pack. I'll have to think about it. I'm really concerned that if I do purchase this, y

@Khaldris.9026 said:

@"Mike O Brien.4613" said:
  • 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.

But you can't "suit player tastes" by creating a system that
actively prohibits player choice.
. Leave the 400 gem random item, but please: give us a 600 gem option to choose the skins we want.

That would cause a second backlash from those that did spend thousands of gems on rolls to get the one or two mount skins they wanted. So if they did that then there would be another mega thread from people that played the RNG game stating they got ripped off because now for 200 more gems they could have just bought the one they wanted. The RNG thing is a done deal. There is no way I can see to offer the current 30 skins other than how they are offered now without causing another PR nightmare. Example, "WTF I spent 2400 gems on rolls to get one mount skin I want and now you are selling it directly for 600 gems. I got ripped off!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorely disappointed by this. You could have just provided (potentially optional) gem refunds to players who already purchased adoption licenses in a manner similar to Steam - the money is already in your system and not going out, you'd only take a small hit to future earnings which you could've compensated with something simple like adding additional utility slots. You could've also provided a more expensive option to directly purchase specific skins from that set, which would still allow for people who desire discounts or don't care about specific skins to get what they want, but also wouldn't force others to purchase potentially up to 100$ worth of gems for 1 skin. "Increasing odds" is a poor excuse when the initial odds are 1/30 at 5$.

You change nothing, and just expect us to believe you will be a better company in the future. That is not enough, and I am done spending my money on a company that supports such lootboxes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so im gonna take a guess on this, while u dont plan to do this in the future, you have backed yourself into a corner with these 30 skins, ill throw a wild guess out there and say, in order to make them available individually it would devalue the purchases already made, and to revert this fact would be a customer service nightmare, that could take days or weeks to fix, hence scrap the idea of adding more lootbox skins, and just leave the people who already purchased them alone. but in the process of doing this you affect the people who dont want rng, but in fact just want the skins separately.

now if this is the case, may i give you a suggestion, random bundles through out the year that contain small amounts of these skins that prices itself depending on how many skins players own, might be a programming nightmare, but its an option to at least fix this mess of an idea

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Thank you for your response Mike. I expected that if you are going to adress our concerns this would be your decision. And I am fully satisfied.

For anyone expecting that current set is going to be changed you are really, really naive. The reason they can't change current set is explained by Mike - people already bought it on current rules. The scope of potential refunds is most likely to big to change existing set.

But at the end Mike says we are right and they are going to sell future mounts without RNG boxes.

This is the only win-win scenario here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tayledras.1604 said:Oh and maybe consider giving us some in-game rewards to work towards. I assuredly get the point of the gem store but to reiterate a point I have made before...if everything is bought and nothing is earned...what are we playing for? And PoF while overall good...feels really lacking in the long term goals department.So true. Is it possible the company doesn't understand people who like playing mmorpgs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the thing

There is a way to make this work without invalidating what people have already invested in this system. To do this we have to look at another game with micro transactions. That game is Path of Exile. They have a lootbox as well that contains random rewards, all cosmetic of course for a small price per box. The catch is if you wait for their cyclical content to hit the next league or release they will introduce a new lootbox with new cosmetics and the old lootbox contents, that is everything you could get out of that particular lootbox randomly goes up for sale on their cash shop for a higher price but no random elements present. In all the discussions i've seen about this I have not once seen anyone mention this as a possible solution. There is no way to make everyone 100% happy but I think this will make the most people happy while allowing Anet to maximize their profits off this product. People who buy mount adoptions early pay less but have to deal with the random element. If you are patient and willing to wait you can pay a higher price later and get the exact skin(s) you want. This would also allow Anet to double dip their profits in a way as well.

Not changing the current adoption system at all just means a not insignificant portion of your playerbase will never touch it all thus losing not only potential revenue there but a healthy amount of goodwill.

Just my two cents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The real funny thing will be when the next nice skins will cost 2000 gems for one again so that you then have to pay 10000 gems for 5 skins while now you could have paid 9600 gems for 30, which of course included the 5 best for each mount.

If the next nice ones cost "discounted" 1600 per set of 5 instead of 2000 for one it will be fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the people who spent Gems on them and AREN'T happy or satisfied because of the random nature?What about our refunds? Does that mean were stuck with the skins we didn't want? Is there no chance at getting our Gems back?

lol, I kinda figured.RIP ~5 years of my time and money I've put into this game...Truly heartbreaking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

This is a satisfactory response to me. I will not purchase the random grab bag chance with real world money though.Maybe if I get gems via achievements or gold, but even then there are plenty of wonderful and unique outfits I could directly purchase from the gem store.We hold this game, this company, you Mo to high standards because we value this game more than other titles out there.Thank you for this statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@JustTrogdor.7892 said:

@Khaldris.9026 said:

@"Mike O Brien.4613" said:
  • 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.

But you can't "suit player tastes" by creating a system that
actively prohibits player choice.
. Leave the 400 gem random item, but please: give us a 600 gem option to choose the skins we want.

That would cause a second backlash from those that did spend thousands of gems on rolls to get the one or two mount skins they wanted. So if they did that then there would be another mega thread from people that played the RNG game stating they got ripped off because now for 200 more gems they could have just bought the one they wanted. The RNG thing is a done deal. There is no way I can see to offer the current 30 skins other than how they are offered now without causing another PR nightmare. Example, "kitten I spent 2400 gems on rolls to get one mount skin I want and now you are selling it directly for 600 gems. I got ripped off!"

The more consumer-friendly answer there is to remove all skins, refund gems, and then give people the option to either re-buy their RNG license, or to just pick out the ones they want.

However, I have no idea how finances work at ArenaNet, so I don't even know if that's possible at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In summary: "Please continue to shovel money our way, I'm sorry you feel that we were in the wrong"

Story time: My roommate's boyfriend, whos never played guild wars 1 or 2, was asking me about the "mount loot box" as he saw the huge upset it created, and after talking with him he said that he was thinking about picking up the game but will not now due to this.

You push more people away with bad decisions like this. The bad press from mount loot boxes cost you more than you gained short term.

Short sighted as always.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy we finally got an answer about this matter (and that was what I really wanted) because we knew that there was no way to change or balance the method to acquire these mount without damaging the one that already bought or Anet (at least is what I think) with the refunds that I'm sure a lot of players would want because of the skins they got.Thanks for listening and sharing your thoughts and decisions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really would have liked to see something in there about asking the community how they'd like to see it implemented BEFORE it's implemented. Otherwise, we are just going to keep heading down the same road. Thanks for understanding at least why the gaming community at large is disgruntled by the practice. Paying attention to games at large over the last few months would have spared you this debacle. All you had to do was read any gaming publication or listen to any podcast about games.

I'm tired of the back and forth, Mike. For stuff like this, do it right the first time. This was the easiest mess in the world of gaming to avoid. Don't do the thing that Shadow of War, Battlefront 2 beta and a few other games did last month.

Also, not fixing the RNG in the current skins is a load of garbage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the feeling the distribution method would be split into 3 ways

  • RNG cheap but with risk
  • Sets for a reasonable price considering the amount you get
  • Single more fancy but a higher price

    To be honest, I thought it was pretty thoughtful of you ( as in Anet) already to have 3 different distribution methods for new mount skins. Keep up the good work!

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Khisanth.2948 said:

You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price.

Is it really a discount if you are only interested in 3 but end up having to buy 30 just to get what you want?

No, it just means that particular mount skin offering isn't for you. Just wait for a mount skin offering you like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not happy with this rollout but this seems a reasonable response to me. I appreciate that changing the system now would be unfair to those that have already invested. Also, the promise not to add additional skins to the package and not dilute the odds is good. All in all, I'm okay with this approach. Thanks for the discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...