A Message About the Mount Adoption License

[Jaskar.3071]

@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 to get one mount skin I want and now you are selling to others for 600 gems. I got ripped off!"

i too think there is too much tension in this matter now; better not changing anything now to not make it even worse and piss off the ones that are not pissed off yet

i really dislike the decision to use rng outside of black lion chests (with the adoption license system), but its only optional skins after all and there is no drawback at all if you don't buy the mount skins (besides of being less shiny i guess)

i m looking forward to spend my money on skins i can purchase directly without rng :)

[Wolfheart.7483]

@Aya.6321 said: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.

If you AREN'T happy about the RNG aspect, you SHOULDN'T have bought them. Why is that so hard to understand?

Regardless, open a support ticket and see if they'll give you a refund.

[Bredegi.1943]

Oh. So this means future tickets wont be used then? I made a mistake and got an extra license left..

[spellchekc.5409]

Very disappointing. GW2's endgame is too heavily cash shop based. Best of luck with the player retention.

[Zigaro.9208]

I think there are ways in between direct selling skins and one out of thirty RNG style. One way would be to have two or three different skins pop up, but you only get to choose one of the three random skins. Another would be to have a one re-roll option if the player did not like the first option. This will keep it RNG but also give a better chance for player to receive their desired skin.

I feel like the 2000 gems for a single mount skin is way to much. I understand it make it an exclusive skin that few people will have, but at least give a mini version with and even an immortal skin box. Outfit packages are on same price level which give a lot more.

[troops.8276]

I wonder how much they made out of it?A few million?Several million?Or just many hundreds of thousands?

Next round it could be:Packs of one skin per mount type (with only one desirable skin in each) for $20 each x 6Single premium skins for $25 eachand maybe a couple of donkeys for $5 a pop

[TheLastNobody.8319]

I don’t understand how anybody thought this was a good idea, be it at ANET or NCSOFT. All the bad press surrounding lootboxes had to have reached somebody. Hell some games have even gotten good press for taking a stand and not implementing them.

Also a shame the skins in these boxes will stay locked behind them. I honestly think the fact they get better odds makes it worse as it’s just incentivizing you to keep buying more and more and more when you don’t get the one or two or theee that you actually want. With other lootboxes I can just say screw it and stop if the chances are that abysmal.

[Ohoni.6057]

@"Mike O Brien.4613" said: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 been collecting and discussing your feedback on the Mount Adoption License, and today I’d like to acknowledge and respond to the concerns you’ve raised, and to share our perspective with you.

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:

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

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.

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.

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.

~ MO

I appreciate that you finally responded to the issue. I understand that you might not want to respond too quickly to an issue before fully understanding what the problem is. I agree with most of your points about the benefits to the original implementation, it is, in many ways, better than it could have been.

That said,

it is still not good enough. "We will not change the current system" is NOT an acceptable long term response to this topic. It never will be. You NEED to offer the currently offered skins in a BETTER WAY. End of story.

I am perfectly willing to support your game through microtansactions, but NEVER through randomized microtransactions, and never while you insist on promoting these randomized microtransactions.

The core flaw in your premise is in this line: "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."

This is a terrible misunderstanding of the realities. The "grab bag" may allow for a "wider range of player tastes," but if the players with those tastes aren't able to acquire the skin they want, then what's the point? If a certain skin is one that only 5% of the people rolling really want, and yet has a 1:30 chance of dropping on the first pull, then that means that 95% of the people who pull this as their first pull will be unhappy with that result. It means that 3% of the people who wanted that skin will be happy with their first result. You have created a system in which unless people commit to buying out the shop, most players will be unhappy most of the time, and at a cost of $120 to buy out the shop, there is nothing "micro" about that.

I get the interest in presenting a wide variety of options, but you need to give players better ways of controlling those options, of selecting the specific skins that appeal to them. This means pricing skins effectively, so that ones that even you recognize will have lower demand, will also be offered at lower prices, so that more causal purchasers will say "sure, for $1 I'd buy that one, it's cheaper than the $10 one and it's kinda cute." Let players determine what they find of value.

And to bring it back around to the current offer, you can't leave it in place. I get that you don't want to "devalue" the purchases people have already made, but you NEED to. You have no other option and the longer you try to drag your feet on this the worse it is going to be. You'll need to make it up to them, sure, you'll need to offer refunds perhaps, or at least offer them bonuses worthy of the investment they put in, but you still need to do it, even if it costs you money, because the loss in consumer trust will cost you a LOT more over the long run if you don't. It's nice that you're looking for better ways to deliver future skins, but you absolutely, positively, 100% NEED to deliver these existing skins via other methods as well.

You can take the time needed to make this right, but you need to at least let us know that you WILL make this right, and so far, this response, is NOT about making it right.

[Tayledras.1604]

Looking at some of the responses I want to remind people of the concept of voting with their wallet...and that it means not only refusing to support unfavorable practices, but also supporting favorable ones.

The damage is done...anything they would do now to the licenses to alter or enhance them risks upsetting and devaluing players who already made the purchases. Example being if you bought 5 licences trying to get X mount and failed...then they release the mounts for individual sale. Yay you can buy the one you wanted...but you wasted all your gems on the 5 you bought.

By all means continue to boycott the RNG heavy gem store additions...but boycotting the gem store entirely accomplishes nothing. Encourage them through your normal purchases to stick to giving us direct products. And I highlight normal purchases...meaning if you see something you like, that is fair and consumer positive...support it. Otherwise just carry on as usual.

[Vincent Xavier Snow.5869]

This was pretty much the response I was expecting. Despite the bitter taste in many mouths right now... Thank you, MO and Anet, for taking the time to listen to your community. This solution is definitely not what most people seem to have been hoping for, but I can respect where Anet is coming from on that end and I think that the solution you've provided does move towards meeting us in the middle.

I, like many others, will not purchase any of the RNG mount skins - but I agree with your reasons for keeping the existing 30 skins as they are, and as long as you stay away from this practice in the future I will happily invest in mount packs or individual releases where the result is guaranteed. I have always wanted to see this game succeed, and I am glad to support you as long as you stick to your commitments.

From a long-time fan: please do not repeat this mistake in the future.

[Ayumi Spender.1082]

Should also state that I'm glad I'm mostly the pessimistic type so I can't get disappointed in the long run.I'm far from disappointed as I simply thought after this morning there wouldn't be an answer.

The only thing I can say after reading it over and even some of these comments are that I think it might've been better if there was no response at all and just whatever plans for next time you did and let this slip under the rug.Can't hear tone/expression in text, but the response doesn't truly sit right with me as something seems off.

I am not saying it's cynical or anything. It just feels "off".

[JaddynnStarr.5201]

@Razor.6392 said:

Not to white knight ANET in this specific case but I feel like the reaction about all of this is overblown.

I initially thought, while being uninformed, that mount skins would be as random as black lion weapon skins (available through tickets).

But later I found out that you are guaranteed a mount skin, and to be honest, at least half of the skins are pretty kitten decent. Let's be frank here for a second. If you were allowed to specifically buy 1 skin, even if it was at 1k gems. Would you even consider buying more than 1 skin? or more than 1 per mount? ANET needs to make money, and while this method seems sort of scumbag-ish, it's a decent one. It would be nothing but starbound and fiery mount skins everywhere. Who would even consider spending any gems / usd on the more 'normal' skins of the bunch?

All in all, for a purely cosmetic item, I feel like the outrage was a little unwarranted. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to buy these skins, and if you get one of the less glittery ones, who cares? Rep it up, be unique.

parsed for emphasis here....

that's the problem.... no one would buy the other skins! no one wants the other skins! no one likes the other skins!! we are being forced to buy bad content to get to the good content we want. you said it yourself, this is scumbag-ish... it cant be decent AND scumbag-ish.... this has turned into my cable bill all over again.... buy 400 channels cuz the 10 I like happen to be in that package..... this is a shit practice, they are capable of making enough money with the current way of selling skins! 3rd quarter sales are well and good and on par with making the next expansion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! they aren't gonna go broke overnight just cuz they don't sell a few lousy skins!! this is money grabbing KITTENERY at its finest here...

[nastyjman.8207]

Can the skins in the license be sold separately at 600 or 700? Those who paid license got it cheap with 400.

[RobotInProgress.9782]

"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.

~ MO"

Single mount skins and packs seems like the better option, although when you say like the Reforged Warhound I do hope you don't intend for all mount skins sold individually to cost the same price.Additionally, I would highly urge one slight change to the adoption license, this being being able to select the mount you want a skin for. But if not, nevermind.

[AlexanderDracul.7492]

I see this response as a failure to understand the issues associated with this system, or at the very least a failure to show us you understand. What about getting skins for mounts you don't use or have? Where and when are these individual skins/packages? There wouldn't be that much of an issue if you actually could buy any skin you wanted even if it were 800 gems while keeping the adoption system.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

@Bredegi.1943 said:Oh. So this means future tickets wont be used then? I made a mistake and got an extra license left..

I'm pretty sure CS should be able to refund you additional license.

[WARIORSCHARGEING.2637]

a admission of a mistake made but yet keep right on going down that same path . that is called what is not #bestforbusiness it will be very interesting to see what comes of this . as well as the history books write this whole story . this most interesting show about to really get hot and go down . i sure the player base will make it very clear as how to they feel about this and RNG . :3 ;)

[jdmThor.3806]

Thank you Mike for your response. Only one thing, please continue to have items/skins in game that people should either be really lucky, or pay a steep price to get (read: 2000 gems isn't steep). I may not personally go after each one of them, but I like that they exist. I actually don't want to see everyone and their mother rolling around in your company's best creations. Just like real life.

[GenXer.7301]

I would very much like to see an option in the future, perhaps with new skins, to earn them by working for them. Perhaps via in-game collections, or as part of the expanding story. Creating story elements that incorporate thematic changes to your mount(s) as you enter new areas or interact with new people/environments would add a great deal. Perhaps even a dramatic event (such as something like the bloodstone burst) that transformed your mount's appearance could provide a ready-made opportunity to introduce a single skin here or there.

While I respect the fact that skins are not necessary in any way to "win", it's undeniable that art collection is a big part of (if not THE biggest part of) the GW2 end-game. While mount skins for large amounts (!!!) of gems are not "pay to win", they are certainly "pay to look cool". By loosely equating "looking cool" to "winning", I think it's apparent why many players could feel that the adoptions pack feel very similar to something that is "pay to win", even though it technically isn't. This doesn't invalidate what you wrote, but it does highlight a practice I really hope doesn't become commonplace in the future.

I also echo the sentiments of others that $25USD (or in the case of the 30-pack, ~$125USD) is by no reasonable standard a "micro"-transaction. Call them "macrotransactions" or "purchases" perhaps, but paying more than half of the base cost of the expansion for cosmetic skins treads pretty heavily into the territory of feeling like a blatant cash-grab. It's something GW2 has done a good job (for the most part) of avoiding in the past, and I hope something that will be a renewed focus in the future.

[iPhyre.4183]

I stand by my ticket, although more frustrated at a game mechanic that was failing me than the actual loot RNG.

I planned to do GW2 as a subscription based game soon, $20 a month to help support the team and it's efforts that have been amazing with the most recent expansion. this also would allow me access to funds for things like, but not limited to, bag slot expansions, shared bags, bank space, etc. high costing static luxuries will always beat RNG mechanics. it's why best buy can charge you $30 for a product you can order online for $15. the here and now is always more consumer friendly than having to wait and taking the risk it might get damaged in the meantime. the Anet team has done a bang up job on a F2P game and many of us don't mean to sound like disrespectful children. but we do hold you to a higher standard than most other games. yes, i'd rather pay $5 for a specific mount skin that looks BA than one i would see as sub par or not to my liking. this would mean i would spend maybe $60 in total for the new skins not getting all of them.... that being said, halving the price of the current box(and refunding gems to those who have spent the $120 price tag) would be the better route to go. this way you get something more than nothing, and i can RNG until i feel satisfied. I think the biggest issue wasn't the RNG behind the boxes per se, but that it was attached to such a high cost with so many variables within and each individual player only liking maybe a handful to a dozen skins.

none-the-less thank you for the response, i look forward to your future products. I love y'all, keep up the great work!

[Nilson.9865]

@troops.8276 said:I wonder how much they made out of it?A few million?Several million?...I don't know how its in your country but in mine,counting money of others is not very noble deed :/ In terms of man's good moral qualities. Better let's stick to the topic :)

[Arewn.2368]

"for a substantial discount"Are you just lying to our faces at this point. TEN of the skins in the pack of thirty were just lazy re-colors. And this isn't a matter of opinion or not liking them. My favorites are actually among those lazy recolor. But they were objectively not very extravagant or labour intensive skins. Literally 10 of the skins in that pack were just the base-mount with 4 dye channels and very slight alterations to the skin's pattern (savanah monitor for e.g.).

In this pack of thirty, each mount got 6 skins. Two skins for each mount were color swaps. Two skins for each mount had small model changes (extra horn, different ears, etc). And two skins for each mount were "special effect" skins.None of them were complete remodels like the reforged jackal.

You'd be lucky to sell some of those skins for 400 gems. With the better ones maybe going for 1000 if you pushed it. This package, without a doubt, is one that has filler skins, good skins, and excellent skins. It is not a pack were "all skins were created equal, but people have preferences" (people do, of course have preference though. As I mentioned earlier I would actually go for the Coastal Raptor over the Flame Raptor for example). It was designed to push people to gamble.

[Devildoc.6721]

@Mike O Brien.4613 said: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 been collecting and discussing your feedback on the Mount Adoption License, and today I’d like to acknowledge and respond to the concerns you’ve raised, and to share our perspective with you.

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:

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

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.

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.

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.

~ MO

Mike, thanks for addressing this at least, but one misconception/difference in viewpoint that exists between anet and customers is leading most of the dispute here.I think we'll both agree on the concept that any time you purchase something, you should get something you are happy with, this is evident in the fact that you cannot get duplicate skins from the licenses. But the difference in view, is that you're not considering people's individual tastes into the factor. You're looking at it as 30 equally good skins that anyone should be happy to have and while I don't mean to slight on your artists, there's some people who only have their eyes set on maybe one skin per mount, maybe not even than many. For them, most of the time they buy a license, they'll receive something they're not happy with and will never use, so it's just burning money, Myself, I'm only interested in about 2 mount skins so for me to acquire those mount skins if you consider that the other 28 mount skins are ones I will never even use, I'm looking at paying up to $60 per mount skin I want, which I hope we'll both agree is unreasonably high.

If you like all 30 skins then this is a great deal, if you only like a few, then it's an awful deal is what it comes down to.

[JustTrogdor.7892]

Suggestion for good PR after all of this negativity. Make an "apology" mount skin, raptor, skimmer, whatever. It doesn't have to be amazing, like the Royal Guard outfit you made for veterans after the HoT issue. Give it to everyone that bought PoF before this happened. Just an idea. :)

[Umut.5471]

Arenanet, I think it would be a lot better if you guys sold each of those skins for 1600 or 2000 gems without RNG. You would be able to still sell high amount of gems,and players would be happy to get rid of the RNG. Personally I don't need all of the skins there. Most players will be going for Starbound skins or those skins with flames or cool effects. Some skins are too basic and they don't make people happy to unlock them.