Were you satisfied with ArenaNet's answer about the Mount Adoption Licenses?

[Djinn.9245]

@notebene.3190 said:are saying they won't do that again.

No they aren't.

[Zeivu.3615]

@Silmar Alech.4305 said:I answered that I was not satisfied, but my answer could be split: The answer itself was ok. Mike O'Brien showed respect to the players. But the message didn't satisfy me, mainly because I don't know if he really meant it. I still assume, the monetization will just continue in the same way as before, regardless of the players showing their dislike, and his post was just something to only calm the players. The forum threads connected to the issue will be closed by moderation in a few days when the dust has settled (some already have instead of being merged), and all things will continue as they were before the accident.

In the end, money rules all, and that is the most important thing for a company. The RNG thing will only change, if legislation changes the law, and the worse companies make RNG and gambling in teen-rated games, the sooner the legislation is made aware of that. In a sense, I'm hoping it gets worse, so legislation will jump on it sooner.

A lot of companies add a clause that their pixels don't have any value in their ToS. That alone will protect their asses in court. People tried to pull that when it came to gaiaonline, a horribly destructive site with a real, manipulative RNG that fell under the watch of 'Goldemort'. Just mentioning his real name on the forums could get you permabanned.

[Coulter.2315]

I would have liked some clarification on the skins currently in the stable being permanently unique to the stable or if they will be able to be brought in individual or group lots.

[Sykper.6583]

I honestly don't know what else more there was MO to say on the matter.

There was zero chance he would roll out changes to refund the gems spent and rework the system to cater to the demands on the forums, despite the objections listed some folks actually liked how the RNG was for the reasons he specified. And putting these skins into new packs would again, hurt the product already sold to players who bought the licenses.

Ultimately the only thing you can do is vote with your wallet, that's all.

[Ohoni.6057]

@Zeivu.3615 said:

@Silmar Alech.4305 said:I answered that I was not satisfied, but my answer could be split: The answer itself was ok. Mike O'Brien showed respect to the players. But the message didn't satisfy me, mainly because I don't know if he really meant it. I still assume, the monetization will just continue in the same way as before, regardless of the players showing their dislike, and his post was just something to only calm the players. The forum threads connected to the issue will be closed by moderation in a few days when the dust has settled (some already have instead of being merged), and all things will continue as they were before the accident.

In the end, money rules all, and that is the most important thing for a company. The RNG thing will only change, if legislation changes the law, and the worse companies make RNG and gambling in teen-rated games, the sooner the legislation is made aware of that. In a sense, I'm hoping it gets worse, so legislation will jump on it sooner.

A lot of companies add a clause that their pixels don't have any value in their ToS. That alone will protect their kitten in court. People tried to pull that when it came to gaiaonline, a horribly destructive site with a real, manipulative RNG that fell under the watch of 'Goldemort'.

I think the right lawyers with the right judge could tear that argument to shreds. You can't declare something to have zero value if there are people who value the item.

[Zeivu.3615]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Zeivu.3615 said:

@Silmar Alech.4305 said:I answered that I was not satisfied, but my answer could be split: The answer itself was ok. Mike O'Brien showed respect to the players. But the message didn't satisfy me, mainly because I don't know if he really meant it. I still assume, the monetization will just continue in the same way as before, regardless of the players showing their dislike, and his post was just something to only calm the players. The forum threads connected to the issue will be closed by moderation in a few days when the dust has settled (some already have instead of being merged), and all things will continue as they were before the accident.

In the end, money rules all, and that is the most important thing for a company. The RNG thing will only change, if legislation changes the law, and the worse companies make RNG and gambling in teen-rated games, the sooner the legislation is made aware of that. In a sense, I'm hoping it gets worse, so legislation will jump on it sooner.

A lot of companies add a clause that their pixels don't have any value in their ToS. That alone will protect their kitten in court. People tried to pull that when it came to gaiaonline, a horribly destructive site with a real, manipulative RNG that fell under the watch of 'Goldemort'.

I think the right lawyers with the right judge could tear that argument to shreds. You can't

declare

something to have zero value if there are people who value the item.

If it has no monetary value, it isn't deemed as legal gambling under law. There would have to be a massive overhaul on the laws on the books. Even then it's also stated that you don't own the pixels and it is IP of the site and you agree to the terms of them lending it to you for your use on the site.

[Ohoni.6057]

@Zeivu.3615 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Zeivu.3615 said:

@"Silmar Alech.4305" said:I answered that I was not satisfied, but my answer could be split: The answer itself was ok. Mike O'Brien showed respect to the players. But the message didn't satisfy me, mainly because I don't know if he really meant it. I still assume, the monetization will just continue in the same way as before, regardless of the players showing their dislike, and his post was just something to only calm the players. The forum threads connected to the issue will be closed by moderation in a few days when the dust has settled (some already have instead of being merged), and all things will continue as they were before the accident.

In the end, money rules all, and that is the most important thing for a company. The RNG thing will only change, if legislation changes the law, and the worse companies make RNG and gambling in teen-rated games, the sooner the legislation is made aware of that. In a sense, I'm hoping it gets worse, so legislation will jump on it sooner.

A lot of companies add a clause that their pixels don't have any value in their ToS. That alone will protect their kitten in court. People tried to pull that when it came to gaiaonline, a horribly destructive site with a real, manipulative RNG that fell under the watch of 'Goldemort'.

I think the right lawyers with the right judge could tear that argument to shreds. You can't

declare

something to have zero value if there are people who value the item.

If it has no monetary value, it isn't deemed as legal gambling under law. There would have to be a massive overhaul on the laws on the books. Even then it's also stated that you don't own the pixels and it is IP of the site and you agree to the terms of them lending it to you for your use on the site.

But it does have monetary value. You spend $5 to acquire it. TYhey can't say "you can't have this unless someone spends $5 for it, but it has no monetary value." It has a monetary value of $5.

[Zeivu.3615]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Zeivu.3615 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Zeivu.3615 said:

@"Silmar Alech.4305" said:I answered that I was not satisfied, but my answer could be split: The answer itself was ok. Mike O'Brien showed respect to the players. But the message didn't satisfy me, mainly because I don't know if he really meant it. I still assume, the monetization will just continue in the same way as before, regardless of the players showing their dislike, and his post was just something to only calm the players. The forum threads connected to the issue will be closed by moderation in a few days when the dust has settled (some already have instead of being merged), and all things will continue as they were before the accident.

In the end, money rules all, and that is the most important thing for a company. The RNG thing will only change, if legislation changes the law, and the worse companies make RNG and gambling in teen-rated games, the sooner the legislation is made aware of that. In a sense, I'm hoping it gets worse, so legislation will jump on it sooner.

A lot of companies add a clause that their pixels don't have any value in their ToS. That alone will protect their kitten in court. People tried to pull that when it came to gaiaonline, a horribly destructive site with a real, manipulative RNG that fell under the watch of 'Goldemort'.

I think the right lawyers with the right judge could tear that argument to shreds. You can't

declare

something to have zero value if there are people who value the item.

If it has no monetary value, it isn't deemed as legal gambling under law. There would have to be a massive overhaul on the laws on the books. Even then it's also stated that you don't own the pixels and it is IP of the site and you agree to the terms of them lending it to you for your use on the site.

But it does have monetary value. You spend $5 to acquire it. TYhey can't say "you can't have this unless someone spends $5 for it, but it has no monetary value." It has a monetary value of $5.

Sorry, but that is how it works. You are giving them money for something that has no real life value and don't own. That is what you agreed to in their ToS. Even our accounts are property of Arenanet.

[Ohoni.6057]

@Zeivu.3615 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Zeivu.3615 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Zeivu.3615 said:

@"Silmar Alech.4305" said:I answered that I was not satisfied, but my answer could be split: The answer itself was ok. Mike O'Brien showed respect to the players. But the message didn't satisfy me, mainly because I don't know if he really meant it. I still assume, the monetization will just continue in the same way as before, regardless of the players showing their dislike, and his post was just something to only calm the players. The forum threads connected to the issue will be closed by moderation in a few days when the dust has settled (some already have instead of being merged), and all things will continue as they were before the accident.

In the end, money rules all, and that is the most important thing for a company. The RNG thing will only change, if legislation changes the law, and the worse companies make RNG and gambling in teen-rated games, the sooner the legislation is made aware of that. In a sense, I'm hoping it gets worse, so legislation will jump on it sooner.

A lot of companies add a clause that their pixels don't have any value in their ToS. That alone will protect their kitten in court. People tried to pull that when it came to gaiaonline, a horribly destructive site with a real, manipulative RNG that fell under the watch of 'Goldemort'.

I think the right lawyers with the right judge could tear that argument to shreds. You can't

declare

something to have zero value if there are people who value the item.

If it has no monetary value, it isn't deemed as legal gambling under law. There would have to be a massive overhaul on the laws on the books. Even then it's also stated that you don't own the pixels and it is IP of the site and you agree to the terms of them lending it to you for your use on the site.

But it does have monetary value. You spend $5 to acquire it. TYhey can't say "you can't have this unless someone spends $5 for it, but it has no monetary value." It has a monetary value of $5.

Sorry, but that is how it works. You are giving them money for something that has no real life value and don't own. That is what you agreed to in their ToS. Even our accounts are property of Arenanet.

Again, this is not something they want to push it on, the right lawyers and the right judge could tear that concept to shreds. ToSs are notoriously flimsy when they defy common sense.

[Myhr.9108]

Got the answer I wanted : no more RNG for mount skins, proper choice with thematic bundles or single skins. While I suspect the latter were already planned anyway, a strong statement for no more loot-boxes for mount skins is what I wanted.

Now, about people that bought licenses and are asking a refund,...except for the few with real gambling addiction, I think they're not really honest there. There was nothing hidden about the licenses, it was clear it was fully random. When you buy a lottery ticket and you don't win, you aren't expecting a refund, now, are you? This doesn't justify the loot-box practice, mind you, but refunding demands are on about the same level, in my eyes. You don't like, you don't buy. If you bought, take your responsibilities.

And for those that say they won't support the game anymore...sigh I guess I'll support the game in your stead so that we can all keep playing. With good non-RNG practices, so thx for the help, but I wonder how long I'll be thankful...

[Dawdler.8521]

I really dont care one way or another, because I find the skins offensive to begin with.

Its taken them 10 god kitten months to fix WvW deathly chill into PvP balance, something that was plaguing WvW on a daily basis and was responsible for a heavy shift to condi meta... and they fixed it after everyone stopped using condi reaper in favor of the superior condi scourge. The irony is seriously hurting my brain.

But apparently they had plenty of time to make dozens upon dozens of skins (on top of PoF at that). Fine, I guess. Cant use mounts in WvW anyway. Every PvEr always say you farm like 20 gold an hour, just convert to gems? What are we even using the gold for? Oh thats right... skins costing thousands of gold >.<

[Drew.1865]

I think the answer was sincere and he could have ignored all the feedback and the community and not said anything. I have been extremely critical of Anet in the past but I honestly feel like they want to hear the communities criticisms now and grow from them instead of banning forum users that are critical of the game.

I appreciate his comment even if it didn’t fix the issue many of us have with the gambling for skins.

[SidewayS.3789]

They'd picked the worse moment to introduce the RNG gambling within lootboxes right now. The word has spread, and we have now on Anet's face "Lootboxes game" all over. They deserve it, and much more.Saying "sorry,but we will continue with these lootboxes" means one thing. They don't want to survive until next expansion, and they are trying to milk the whales as much as possible and fast.These thing killed others MMOs...One thing for sure, from me, they will not any coin,and atm i'm looking for another MMO.

[draxynnic.3719]

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@Ayakaru.6583 said:My stance. Anet rushed the model. They should've taken more time into designing the release model. Better options exist if more care and time was taken.That said i am very disappointed in BOTH anet AND the playerbase. While anets methodoligy is often careless or not thought out well enough, the blatant overreacting of the crowd is equally, if not more, out of proportion.

The playerbase's reaction is perfectly normal when you consider the timing:

Loot boxes in triple-A games like Shadow of War, Battlefront, Call of Duty have everyone up in arms about the practice.

They couldn't possibly have picked a worse time to "expriment" (if you're generous enough as to call it that - I am not. My view on it is far, faaar more cynical - Anet saw everyone else doing it and thought they could get away with it too. But as I said, I'm cynical.).

Pretty much. NCSoft probably wanted to jump on the bandwagon, but the bandwagon has already generated enough negative publicity that it was only going to bite them.

To be fair, as far as lootboxes go, they're fairly innocuous. For all people say that the endgame of GW2 is cosmetics, they are purely cosmetic. They're not even like the Cox Boxes that the sclerite and dragon's jade weapons were originally released in: you are guaranteed to get one every time, and there is a cap (even if that cap is ridiculously high) on how many you'd need to buy to get what you want.

On the other hand, it's still RNG, and selling things randomly is pretty much always a result of the company feeling they can get more that way than by offering things for direct sale at a fair price (through people buying a lot of things they don't want before they get the thing they want). I, for one, am not going to support that, any more than I'm going to support VIP passes that are predicated on the amenities in the base game being deliberately made less convenient.

On the whole... the answer is a bit of a non-answer. I see it as a recognition on their part that people didn't like what they did and therefore that they'll take this into account in future business decisions. It's also good on their part to directly address the criticism and - at least thus far - not attempt to stifle the discussion (it's not like they have moderator power on Reddit, though...). On the other hand, for someone who's really fired up (my own status is "not angry, but disappointed"), I don't see that this response is going to do much to win hearts and minds. Too easy to take the Aes Sedai principle and deduce that it doesn't actually say what they might want you to think it says.

[Aya.6321]

I have quit the game because of this, lol.After 5 years and spending countless dollars and hours on it, this really ruined everything for me.There's no compassion in the company now. It's all just business.I'm not sure if it's PR or just Mike's influence in general, but man. The overall respect that ANET has given us as a dedicated, lively playerbase is basically nonexistent.They don't cherish our loyalty and love for their franchise anymore.They only cherish our money and it's really, really sad.

[Evolute.6239]

As long as they don't continue down the lootbox route, it doesnt matter to me much. At least they said something. I'm okay with whales spending all this money if it keeps the game running. The prices for the individual mounts are not even bad, 400 gems for a potential great skin is cool. I wish it was slightly less randomized, though, like specific mount choice. I don't have a griffon nor do I ever use a skimmer so the box is basically a bad investment to me.

[Rennka.4273]

To be honest, I didn't really care in the first place but people's outlandish reactions to the licenses kinda shocked me. I already thought people were kinda overreacting considering A.) They're optional skins. Purely cosmetic and B.) There's 0 chance of a duplicate which was always my problem with these gambling type models. I thought the fact that we got a response from ArenaNet at all was pretty cool. They stated that they had no plans to add more skins to the licenses and that skins released from here on out would be done in a similar manner as the skull ones from Halloween.

They're not in a position to refund money to people who purchased the maximum number (or even less) of licenses so this response was honestly the best they could've done. It's very strange to me that people are blowing this way out of proportion considering just how OPTIONAL this whole thing is. Someone mentioned earlier in the thread how this is no different from them putting skins in Black Lion boxes but with a 100% chance of a skin and that's very true. They did something similar with the Feathers of the Zephyr glider. People spent a TON of money/time grinding gold just to get some keys to unlock a couple of chests for this skin. Nobody complained about that even though I consider that to be significantly more unfair.

Don't get me wrong, I also think the licenses weren't a very good thing since I'm not one to gamble with my money like that, but my first instinct was to just NOT spend my money. More skins will come out; just save your cash for when something else you like comes out.

[brenda.9723]

In my opinion this debate went way too far.There we so much ranting about people who will uninstall the game, spread negative press or will not give any money anymore to GW2.And I am happy that this negative vibe did not work.I think that when you really love the game, that you need to forgive some mistakes.In my opinion the mount skin system was a mistake, but it did not deserve so much hate and anger from the community.GW2 is still my favorite game, and I will not stop to support it.

[Vayne.8563]

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Zeivu.3615 said:

@Ohoni.6057 said:

@Zeivu.3615 said:

@"Silmar Alech.4305" said:I answered that I was not satisfied, but my answer could be split: The answer itself was ok. Mike O'Brien showed respect to the players. But the message didn't satisfy me, mainly because I don't know if he really meant it. I still assume, the monetization will just continue in the same way as before, regardless of the players showing their dislike, and his post was just something to only calm the players. The forum threads connected to the issue will be closed by moderation in a few days when the dust has settled (some already have instead of being merged), and all things will continue as they were before the accident.

In the end, money rules all, and that is the most important thing for a company. The RNG thing will only change, if legislation changes the law, and the worse companies make RNG and gambling in teen-rated games, the sooner the legislation is made aware of that. In a sense, I'm hoping it gets worse, so legislation will jump on it sooner.

A lot of companies add a clause that their pixels don't have any value in their ToS. That alone will protect their kitten in court. People tried to pull that when it came to gaiaonline, a horribly destructive site with a real, manipulative RNG that fell under the watch of 'Goldemort'.

I think the right lawyers with the right judge could tear that argument to shreds. You can't

declare

something to have zero value if there are people who value the item.

If it has no monetary value, it isn't deemed as legal gambling under law. There would have to be a massive overhaul on the laws on the books. Even then it's also stated that you don't own the pixels and it is IP of the site and you agree to the terms of them lending it to you for your use on the site.

But it does have monetary value. You spend $5 to acquire it. TYhey can't say "you can't have this unless someone spends $5 for it, but it has no monetary value." It has a monetary value of $5.

Actually gems may have monetary value but mount skins don't because they're not bought with your money they're bought with gems. I'm pretty sure that's why so many game companies use a secondary currency and I'm pretty sure it's been tested in court.

[Tiny Doom.4380]

I'm curious as to why my account name doesn't appear in the list of voters. I voted for "So and So", the vote was accepted and i no longer get the option to complete the poll but there's no sign of my account icon beside that result or any of the others.

[Vayne.8563]

@Aya.6321 said:I have quit the game because of this, lol.After 5 years and spending countless dollars and hours on it, this really ruined everything for me.There's no compassion in the company now. It's all just business.I'm not sure if it's PR or just Mike's influence in general, but man. The overall respect that ANET has given us as a dedicated, lively playerbase is basically nonexistent.They don't cherish our loyalty and love for their franchise anymore.They only cherish our money and it's really, really sad.

To me there's no compassion in the fan base. I can't have a mount skin I want, because it's RNG. Okay. At the same time, people have been spending gold instead of cash for years, some of us anyway, and the amount of money the game makes is sliding down. People keep saying stuff like greed and business....this isn't a game that's making more and more money. It's a game that's making less and less money. But you know, people can't have their mount skin so the company is evil and your'e done with it.

As long as there are people willing to buy stuff that keep the game running, I'm playing the game very cheaply if I don't buy that stuff. I'm not sure why it should affect my game so much since those skins didn't even exist a couple of weeks ago and I was having fun anyway.

[choovanski.5462]

I feel so validated in my decision not to buy PoF. anet is no longer anything close to worthwhile these days

[brenda.9723]

@choovanski.5462 said:I feel so validated in my decision not to buy PoF. anet is no longer anything close to worthwhile these days

actually the game is really nice and totally worth it ^^

[Marque.6897]

No, it was purely a PR message with hardly any substance to it and offering zero changes to how they implemented the mount adoption license system and no true guarantee they won't continue with such models in the future. I am disappointed with their answer.

[Ohoni.6057]

@Vayne.8563 said:

Actually gems may have monetary value but mount skins don't because they're not bought with your money they're bought with gems. I'm pretty sure that's why so many game companies use a secondary currency and I'm pretty sure it's been tested in court.

That's not true. It's impossible to get gems without spending money. While it's true that you can get gems without spending money, you can only do so by buying those gems from someone who did spend money for them, so someone spent money for those gems to exist. Your argument here would only be a valid one you the gem exchange did not exist but instead you could just directly buy gem store stuff with gold.

As for why games use secondary resources, there are three reasons:

1. Psychological. This is especially true of games like GW2 that do not have a 1:1 relationship between USD and their currencies. You get 400 gems for $5, not 500 gems, which makes people sub-conciously think that a 400 gem purchase is $4, not $5. Obviously this works slightly differently in other markets, but this is primarily an American game made by Americans, so it would be most natural to balance the two if they didn't deliberately avoid doing so. On top of this, people just feel a bit more loose with "play money" than with real money, so once it's been converted, they're more likely to spend it.
2. Sunk costs. Alternate currencies typically come in bundled packages, often with discounts for larger bundles. Once you've converted it, you can't get it back, so you might as well spend it. Often online stores will set pricing such that a given item costs just a bit more in currency than what you would get from the nearest bundle, like 500-600 gems when the bundle options are 400 or 800, forcing you to have gems left over. This either wastes the remainder or encourages you to get more gems to buy something else with. GW2 isn't so bad with this, especially since you can use the exchange to make up the differences in either direction, but other games really lean into this one.
3. Processing fees. Making payments with credit cards typically involves a fee on their end, if you spend $20, they will receive less than $20. Requiring players to make more bulk purchases is more efficient on their end than if you make a lot of little purchases directly using credit cards. If you convert $20 into 1600 gems, and then spend those on four items, it would make them at least slightly more pocketed cash than if you'd purchased four items for $5 each, or if you'd purchased half a dozen items at varying prices.