A Message About the Mount Adoption License

[draconicrose.6213]

Just rotate the mounts through the gem store at a higher price (800 gems?). That way people can gamble and still get "value" (throws up a little in mouth) from the adoption licenses and people who want a few of the skins can just wait until they come around.

[Kiwicharr.8051]

Thanks for the response Mike, even though it may not be what a lot of the players wanted to hear.

I really want to ask though, why didn't Arenanet add at least some of those skins in as in-game rewards? PoF would have greatly benefited from having a few of those skins as end game content (similar to the griffon)

Some of these skins should have been obtainable in game, they really could have prolonged PoF's longetivity by having 10 or so of those skins as rewards or collection items. If the fire griffon of the reforged hound had some long legendary like journey to acquire it players would have really enjoyed it (build the content around it and still make it expensive in karma, gold and trade contracts and require players to do a lot of Pof's events/achievements/collections)

[Jora.5471]

I like how the RNG was designed in the Mount lootbox. I want that to be put in the BL chest.

[Schikatu.3071]

So if there is a skin in the current one, I just have to forget about it because I don't want to gamble for it?Why not just make the license so you can choose the mounts you want, and either refund the gems or the license things to the players who already bought them (i know you guys can do something like this) and just let them choose which ones they want too?

[Fatherbliss.4701]

I guess in my mind when I read the initial post, I was thinking that I could pay gems and then receive something more like a mount skin each month. Almost signing up for a subscription service. I'd get a random one each month for a set gem price. That to me was exciting even though it would mean I couldn't get specific skins. Your artists are doing a fantastic job, this is part of the reason people are clamoring for the mounts. Its interesting to note that mounts are obviously an outrageous success based on what I'm seeing here. If you add mounts in game that are featured in a system that is RNG, don't have an option to buy them. I suspect if you had added these mounts in smaller increments the outrage wouldn't have been so great.

[Jordo.5913]

I've loved Guild Wars ever since I played Prophecies back in the day during launch but this move right here has me thinking of quitting for good. I can't support a game developer that sees their audience as a $$$ pit.

Glider skins were not this bad. You could at least just purchase them as you wanted them. This is just a money grab to try and get you to pay more money for that one skin you want, instead of letting everyone buy it at 1000 gems. Then you try to hide it with a "it creates variety" comment. Except it doesn't, you are just hoping someone will spend tons of money to try and get that one skin out of 30 of them. Someone unlucky enough could literally spend 12000 gems or 150 bucks trying to get that one skin they want. If you don't see a problem with that, that baffles the hell out of me.

Then the blatant slap in the face; "we know it's wrong, we know we screwed up, but we're not fixing it, deal with it" doesn't help anything either. I've always prided Anet to my friends as a game developer that listens to it's audience. If we let you know we don't like something, you guys usually fix it or compromise with us. (See HoT pricing). This is the complete opposite direction.

Instead of being part of the problem with the random lootbox controversy, go against it and show that you still have morals as a company to not cash grab your audience but still support the live in game production with cash shop items that are GUARANTEED.

[Ayumi Spender.1082]

@"Mike O Brien.4613" said:We stand by the work our artists put into each skinYou 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.~ MO

Please don't delete this as it won't be fair at all, but um... I saw this on a post someone posted on Reddit like 2 days ago. It took me a while to relocate it, but I finally did. I think the best response I can come up with these tidbits is:https://i.imgur.com/qId5RMR.gifv

I want to know what "work" those artists did here? I want to know what "brand-new" or "unique" about this is?Where is the "new skin to use"? You mean just making it dyable? Is that what makes it new?Where is the "variety"?

I'm not attacking you as I'm an artist too. I sometimes criticize art because it's in my nature as I like designs, I like shapes, I like to see what people come up with whether with a lot or nothing. That's how I am.The thing is... this is as much variety as someone making Darksteel The Hedgeheg (Original character. Do not steal).I know you're in the business and all, but please don't just lie in people faces.

It would not have been widely accepted, but coming out and flat out saying "Some are unique, and some ARE simply reskins/recolours/unlocking dye selections when the originals only have one dye slot, but at least you get more customizing within the new skin that at least allow you to dye your mounts the way you want." Or something.

I'm a blunt person. I don't sugarcoat things unless I really have to... like if a child's mother was just killed I wouldn't just bluntly tell the kid what happen. That's just... that can scar someone. Certain situations come for certain ways to address things.The problem is, when it comes to people when it's in the sense of whether it's someone that understand the situation (they should if they're allowed to spend money.... but I do know some irresponsible parents out there give their children their credit cards out there but I'm not going to go into that. That's another topic and I really rather not drag down that patch), you should just flat out say in black and white what you did, why you did it, and as you stated how you guys will try another approach down the line? That's fine.

But this sounds like just trying to do damage control.It's just my personal opinion. I'm not an economist, I'm not in the business, I'm not a PR girl/guy/thing/whatever, I'm just going by what I see and what I hear.

[WitchKisses.1360]

There should be no rng involved when dealing with premium currency, if you have bad luck you could have to spend up to $120 to get the one skin you want. If you have to put in a rng element then at least let players choose the mount we get the random skin for. Some of us only use one or two mounts or don't want to bother getting the griffon and it's a huge waste if you get a skin for a mount you're never going to use or don't have.

[Aya.6321]

@Sulfarius.1756 said:Here's what you could do to make sure no investment has gone to waste:

1. Remove all Mount Adoption License's skins from wardrobes and give people new Mount Adoption License equal to the skins they had unlocked.
2. Make the Mount Adoption License pick whatever you want. Now people can get the skins back they had, or pick the ones they really wanted.
3. Allow people to make a ticket to refund any Mount Adoption License they no longer need if they had bought many to get specific skin.

Honestly, I really thought this would happen after all the backlash.To be frank, I honestly just feel like Mike's response was pretty drawn-out and totally empty when it comes to any real meaning.What you suggest is a very intuitive and I think would mend a lot of the trust that was broken over the past few days.

[Scutilla.3072]

@Gray.9041 said:

• Whenever you have an item that is gem store only, don't make it hard for players to get it. it's already a microtransaction - don't put up unnecessary barriers.Rather than throwing more fuel on the fire, I feel this statement sums up my feelings on the subject more succinctly than anything. Thank you.

[SoraSugi.4079]

It's not about this way doesn't work. Its all about 30 skins on 1 time it's too much. If they publish like 4 skins per month no one will say anything about RNG.

[Aya.6321]

@Scutilla.3072 said:

@Gray.9041 said:

• Whenever you have an item that is gem store only, don't make it hard for players to get it. it's already a microtransaction - don't put up unnecessary barriers.Rather than throwing more fuel on the fire, I feel this statement sums up my feelings on the subject more succinctly than anything. Thank you.

Wow. I've never actually thought of it that way. Why make it harder than it is to spend money?I too feel as though this is extremely valid and should be taken into consideration following any more RNG related Gem store only items.

[Umbramare.9156]

@Alga.6498 said:I will support and I will gladly purchase gemshop items, no matter what. If I like it of course. But I bought the 9,600 gems mount skin license contract because I love the variatons and the skins!

"71 characters" in signature.

Here you guys can see what the gaming companies call a "whale" LIVE. Grab your popcorn and enjoy how they are pushing RNG on us

[MithranArkanere.8957]

Do not forget that people really dislike when things feel like there's no alternatives to gemstore. Even if they can buy gems with gold, they'll feel like the only way to get any skin is gemstore if there's not enough alternatives in the game.

• Look at minis: We can earn tons of them. Some really cool, others kind of meh. You hardly see anyone mad because a mini is gemstore-exclusive or a BLChest exclusive.

• The only outfit that can be acquired from playing in the Halloween one. Maybe there should be just a few more. They do not even need to be full designs. They could be reskins and reused assets like the Halloween outfit:

  • At level 17 players get the message about the wardrobe in the level up info panel. Players could get at that moment the outfit version of the old town clothes, to get them acquainted with the system. Any player logging in with a character level 17 or higher would get this outfit in the mail. It is the perfect outfit to be the free one everyone gets because it's simple, not too flashy, fits in with the lore, and it's different per race. The perfect thing for players to get and think "Hey, this is cool, I may get more of these".
  • Each festival could also have their own outfit like Halloween:
    • Wintersday could have reskin of the Artic Explorer with a yule cap instead a hood.
    • Super Adventure could have a reskin of a simple outfit that looks like old RPG character like the Monk or Pirate captain outfits, but with a holygraphic appearance. Then in the gemstore there could be also a cool holographic version of outfit using a flashier newer style RPG look as a base, like royal guard or shadow assassin.
  • Each expansion could also allow earning one through completion of story and challenges across its maps, like a 'jungle explorer' outfit for hot based on the desert explorer outfit , and "savior of Elona" one for pof.

  Then, even as all remaining outfits are gemstore only, players can get started with a few of them they earned without grinding gold, get acquainted with the system. and feel that at least they could earn some.

• For gliders, the only ones that can be earned come from crafting legendary gear. Why not having at least a version of the default glider that can be dyed better and that can be earned playing in hot maps?
• For mounts, many people would be happy if they could earn for each mount just 1 extra version that can be dyed a bit more than 1 channel.

Do not be put off by the occasional complain about reskins. There's nothing wrong with them, they save assets and allow making more with less resources, and enable the ability of getting 'poor man's' versions of things for those with less resources without taking away from those who get the real deal.

[Endlos.4852]

I mean, if they really cared, they would have:

• Refunded the gem price to anyone that bought any licenses.
• Removed the licenses from the store, and removed the skins from everyone's accounts.
• Re-worked the skins into smaller packages based on the amount of actual artist effort or changes in model, making the plainest packages 200-300 gems, and making the fanciest ones 500-600 gems. Each package lets you select a single skin to unlock.
• Balance the math and cost so that anyone looking to unlock all 30 still pays the exact same total price as the original 30-contract bundle.
• Offer 5 packages that each unlock all the variants for a single mount type, sold as a bundle of convenience but not as a discount -- the goal is to keep the total price for all mounts the same, but remove the tedium of buying/selecting 30 mounts one at a time, and also not forcing people to buy Griffon/Jackal skins if they don't have and don't intend to get a Griffon or Jackal.

It's not like Anet's solution to this needed to be immediate. It would be silly to expect any kind of a fix to be instant. But the moral thing to do, in addition to admitting that they dun goofed, would have been to instantly stop the exploitative selling practice, pull the system, and go back to the drawing board. People that already bought mounts would get all their gems back and they'd only lose a week or two of using the skins until the new system was put in, then they could pay the exact same total price to unlock everything again, or they could individually choose which mounts they want to unlock.

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 weasel-wording. It's either straight-up admitting that some of the skins aren't worth 400gems (which since they're reskins, they aren't) or it's suggesting that the fanciest of the skins are so valuable that they couldn't be priced at a fair individual amount that anyone would pay. Since this same patch also put up a 2000-gem single mount model, I'm thinking that the latter explanation is unlikely, leading us back to "Oh, hey, a lot of these retextures took a lot less than 400 gems worth of effort, but using them as lottery padding increases the amount of 400 gem tickets we can sell to people trying to gamble for the more-valuable skins." Note that I'm not saying the skins are worthless. I'm just saying that some of them aren't worth 400 gems when they're just a texture-swapped version of the existing models in the paid expansion with the amount of dye channels that the base models in the paid expansion should have had in the first place.

No matter how much you stand by your artists' work and effort, and no matter how many fans each individual skin may have, if the only way to monetize particular skins is by randomly offering them as roadblocks to getting the cooler ones then your priorities are messed up. Did each mount need three texture reskins when one per mount would have sufficed? Then you could just offer "plain mount A" for a reasonable price, while offering "fancy mount A" and "fancy mount B" for higher prices, and the customer could buy what they want without feeling stuck with unwanted skins.

"Hey we understand that you're angry that we tried to exploit you, but we're not backing down on that because it would be too much effort to rectify things for the players we already fleeced, and we could still make money from new players with this scam, but we promise not to do it again in the future." Adding three bullet points that all say the same thing and try spin it as if Anet was doing us a favor with their predatory pseudo-gambling system doesn't really make me feel all that appeased. This seems less like "Wow, we really messed up, we tried to take advantage of you as customers, and we're sorry" and more like "Man, we grossly underestimated how upset you'd be by us exploiting you, we'll tone it down in the future."

[SansSariph.9548]

Mike, this is clearly not a mea culpa or apology of any sort. This is arrogance and you trying to explain to your customers why they are wrong and that this is really a great deal and we just don't get it.

$20 for a single skin is not reasonable. $120 for a bundle is not reasonable. A $5 skin ticket is not a substantial discount just because you say it is, when this is a new product and you control the price. I understand these have a development cost and you need to make a profit not just for the skin but the game in general, but $120 for a set of skins when it's more than double the cost of the entire game is price gouging. Where's the real discount for collectors?

Certainly, I would pay $10 or maybe even more for the really fancy skins. Not all skins in the set are equal though and you know it. Some are worth $5 and if prices were truly customer friendly they'd be even cheaper.

Do not call this a "micro" transaction because it is anything but.

You guys have lost my faith as a customer and this non response does not help - it makes me think you think I'm stupid and are trying to pull wool over my eyes with hand waving.

Maybe you truly believe what you are saying and truly think this is great for customers. Maybe there is some sense to this model. But not at these prices. The prices are exploitive. Do not call this a discount.

[cyndelaq.7148]

• 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.Intentional or not, it's still random. If I want a single mount skin, I have to buy licenses until I get that single skin...
• 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.There's the problem. It shouldn't be a large set, they should be sold as 6 packs of 5 mount skins each.We also stand by the work your artists put into these skins, that's not the issue. The issue is that, if I want to remove the RNG aspect of the licenses, I have to pay 120 USD, I'm Canadian... 120 USD is 152.19 CAD...
• You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price.Valid point, valid point... What if I only want one particular skin?
• It uses a progressive mechanic. Every license gives you a new skin to use and increases the odds of acquiring any remaining skins.Valid point, valid point... What if I only want ONE particular skin?
• 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.Valid point, valid point... What if I only want ONE PARTICULAR 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.You wouldn't have to do any refunds if you just consolidate the skins into packs.You shouldn't have done this in the first place.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.These microstransactions might be optional but you released these at a time when people have more income then brains and you KNEW people would spend the money on this regardless of whether or not the price point is fair... This was just greed.

Just... What the heck? Right this wrong, please...

[Opopanax.1803]

Thank you for the post and remembering your commitment, that is really good to hear.

I understand not changing this one as I think trying to compensate and engineer a solution at this point is a headache and waste of resources and would invariably make people upset.

Please don't go down that RNG f2p road...

[Genei.7502]

Thanks for the response.

I think there's a way, not easy and not quick, to ensure that the players that invested in the skins are treated fairly.

As much as I love 2 of the skins for myself and 2 for my wife, the inability to trade them and thus buy them specifically means we'll just hold out. We liked the Halloween skins, but decided to wait and see what else was going to come out.

I love the game, and the art style and direction. I don't always love the outfits or weapons, but there are always some that are just gorgeous. I'll be waiting for mount skins that I can directly acquire.

I'd love to see some Exalted inspired skins.

[Pandonation.7201]

LMAO good luck getting your losses back for this one, Anet. I appreciate you giving us your side of things, but what it really boils down to is this company being completely and shamelessly willing to set customer satisfaction aside for the sake of money. Boo. I've played this game for years upon years, and this is the first time I'm actually terribly disappointed with a (so-called) resolution.

[JaddynnStarr.5201]

@Zeivu.3615 said:So much entitlement over something that doesn't add any advantage to your account. They even stated going forward they will take your feedback into consideration and won't do it again. After a hearty apology and intention to protect the interests of the consumer who supported this decision, you are still attacking them. Honestly, most companies would tell you to kitten off and won't even take feedback. After this, I wouldn't blame Arenanet if they took that stance. So many of you were on board with mount skins before this and didn't care how much it would cost you. Ungrateful twats. They could have easily taken the BL chest route.

Zeivu, the rub of it is, is that skins are the advantage in this game. While it isn't a combat advantage, its the enjoyment factor of having cool and awesome things to look at and show off while you are running around playing the content. unfortunately, we have to contend with real world economics when we look at the cash shop and what they have done. A "thing" is only valuable, if someone will pay for it. companies don't last long if they tell their customers to KITTEN off in this situation. Especially ones that rely on cash shops to support them. so no..... they SHOULDNT tell players to kitten off.... at least not directly. They may do so by implying the player is culpable in the disastrous effort they have undertaken (IMHO that's what they have done with MO's statement). But this company is just as succeptable to loss of revenue as any other business that decides to sell subpar products or services. If you cant provide quality products/services at a reasonable cost to the consumer, then , well.... you don't have much of a business.

[Kameko.8314]

This is how I see it. You’re encouraging people to gamble with money / gold. I know you want to gold sink and gem sink higher people’s wealth but in effect you make the “poor” angrier and rise up. The rich will stay rich in game regardless.

You have an rng gamble already black lion chests. You have a gold sink gamble (ecto gamble) now you want a mount gamble?

If you standby your artwork post them on individual sales or pack sales (your “low quality” vs “high quality” and if you argue with me that this is not the case I call bs and quit the game now). You telling me that a starbound is same price as a raptor that is fairy similar to normal skin ? Not at all. You will see high purchases of starbound and low on that poor raptor design. One step further the flame raptor vs normal design basically . You will see MANY flames bought but hardly any of those other raptor why? Because they well design and you can compliment that artist and stand by your work. Whereas that poorly designed one you say well that was a tragedy. Instead you lock it all behind rng and you don’t get proper feedback of which was good because everyone was forced by luck or a guaranteed 30 pack license.

Anyway sick of the random or gamble chance . Truly stand by your work with good quality and you will be profited for it.

[Smoaking.6125]

What a load of garbage PR doublespeak. It's essentially "We don't think we did anything wrong but since there's bad press about it I guess we'll stop it. For now. But we're not changing anything so if you don't like it, too bad. We were being nice by only charging you 400 gems per purchase."

Mo, I hope you step on a Lego every day twice a day for six months. You're not getting my money anymore.

[Recovery.4612]

Not good enough, you didn't actually address any issues and try to say that you were trying to be nice to us and give us discounts? No. Go fuck yourself.

[Shanky.4179]

well, with a bs response like that they can expect backlash to continue. keep digging your grave Anet. As expected from a trash company like Ncsoft.