How About Some Love For ArenaNet??

RoChan.1926 · November 15, 2017

Just because EA is worse, doesn't suddenly make Anet a better company. :/

They have things that they can be praised for but since you are trying to make a comparison for EA's latest practices, I think "Showing Anet" love for not putting as many hairs in your soup as EA did doesn't mean there aren't hairs in the soup.

So, OP, when you or any one else goes "At least they aren't as bad as EA!" Remember, the lesser of two evils doesn't mean someone is suddenly a saint.

nosleepdemon.1368 · November 15, 2017

@Malediktus.9250 said:The love is in a chest with 30 different emotions. 5 dollars per try

Hahah touche!

AegisRunestone.8672 · November 15, 2017

@Kheldorn.5123 said:I don't think Anet deserve anything at this point. They used lootbox mechanic for one reason only - money. If all they care is money, we owe them nothing. More cynism towards anet actions from now on.

Maybe they could use that money to invest in a better balance team.

nosleepdemon.1368 · November 15, 2017

@RoChan.1926 said:Just because EA is worse, doesn't suddenly make Anet a better company. :/
They have things that they can be praised for but since you are trying to make a comparison for EA's latest practices, I think "Showing Anet" love for not putting as many hairs in your soup as EA did doesn't mean there aren't hairs in the soup.
So, OP, when you or any one else goes "At least they aren't as bad as EA!" Remember, the lesser of two evils doesn't mean someone is suddenly a saint.

Crikey, perhaps I should follow this post up with a poll "did you read the Op?" but it would only require one answer. C'mon folks, don't make me start playing the devil's advocate. Once again I don't agree with loot boxes, but effectively saying that we should be happy with the "lesser of two evils" is neither naive nor hypocritical. It's obvious ANet care about their game, that publisher... Not so much. Theirs was a response showcasing a total disregard for anything other than making money off of whale oil, ANet's was an admission that they could have designed this better. Clearly, expecting ANet to change how they monetize their mounts in the future is reasonable.

Fox.3469 · November 15, 2017

@nosleepdemon.1368 said:Recent events on Reddit regarding a certain other publisher certainly do put things in perspective, don't they? Have you guys seen the economy in that game? Full AAA price, with loot boxes on top that literally are pay to win. A bajillion different currencies and unlocks and crafting and cards and locked characters, all screaming at you to pay money to get passed the grind.
This really puts ArenaNet's "Here's 30 mounts have at it!" attitude into perspective. I'm not saying I agree with loot boxes in any form, but I sure am glad I threw my hat in with Gaille and her Krew, instead of those unbelievable kitten hats at that other publisher.
So, how about some love for our chums at ArenaNet? Not everything they do is always super popular, but for goodness sake, they are at least still human!

Hey i know steve hasn't been the best person and technicly he shot someone in the head but at least he's a not a mass murderer like that other guy right?Honestly if you don't care about lootboxes or you like the system and openly say that i have more respect for you when whatever this post is supposed to be. Someone else being worse does not excuse predatory sales tactics in this game, nor does it mean we should suddenly be less angry about it.

Djinn.9245 · November 15, 2017

@ChrisLew.5492 said:
@IndigoSundown.5419 said:I've praised ANet many times when I think it is warranted. The best I can say about mount licenses is that they may well be good deals for gamblers, whales and completionists. For anyone else who has any interest in these particular mount skins, the setup is guaranteed to entice spending more than one might choose to were the skins individually priced at an amount the market would bear. In other words, the system is not friendly for what is likely a large consumer demographic.
The carefully-crafted response by Mr. O'Brien encourages the belief that the license sales were designed to be more friendly to consumers. I'd like to believe that. However, the sales plan was also carefully crafted. It comes complete with a supposedly consumer-friendly element (no repeats) which elicits purchasing more than one would be inclined to due to the psychological effect of the sunk-cost fallacy. Sunk-cost thinking is more likely to entice people to go beyond their personal limits than the gambler's fallacy does, except perhaps in people who regularly gamble. ANet completed the sales package with the limited-time bundle price and the anchoring effect of the 2K gem fiery goat skin. The overall marketing strategy, and the we-won't-do-this-again-in-the-next-planned-releases statement make it harder for me to believe ANet had overall consumer interests in mind.
So, the best I can do is to say, "Thanks for designing a mount skin purchase plan which is likely better for your big-ticket customers than other games do."
What I will also say is, "Thanks for avoiding the sale of in-game power in the gem store." That part I do appreciate.

Except “sunk-cost” when it applies to real gambling, or truly deplorable cash shops has literally no assurance you will ever get what you want. $120 for 30 different mount skins with no repeats isn’t the worst gouge in the world. I suggest some of you look at the actual fiascos and gambling boxes in other “buy to play” MMORPGs: ESO, Black Desert. I know for a fact you can spend $3000 in ESO trying to get a ‘special’ mount—there’s a post on their forums with someone who did just that. And failed.

Just because there are worse examples of gamble boxes doesn't meant that any gamble box is good or even ok. They ALL manipulate the customer. The fact that Anet didn't release a single reasonably priced skin at the same time as the Mount License box is purposeful: if the players had a choice between gambling or directly purchasing what they wanted, there would be no contest. Would some people purchase the gamble box? Perhaps, but the vast majority of people who have commented on them on these forums have said that even though they purchased a license they would have preferred to not have the RNG.

Djinn.9245 · November 15, 2017

@Cyninja.2954 said:The comparisons some people make, the pure entitlement that seeps out of some comments. Guess what, things are going to get even worse down the road.
Why? Because as GW2 grows older and the playerbase declines and revenue dries up, more drastic methods of monetisation will be required to keep the game working with this kind of monetisation method (no pay to win, cosmetics mostly from gem store, no subscription fee, living world updates inbetween expansions).
Was the mount addition not well received? Sure, it could have been handled better. I personally was/am more concerned with what this says about the state of the monetisation which arenanet are willing to try more than the:"Waaaaah, I can't get the skins I want."

You are absolutely correct - this type of scheme should signal the beginning of a kind of desperation that a company needs to dupe their customers out of more money than the customer would willingly pay. I wonder if Anet means to send this message that GW2 is going down the tubes? But whether a company is doing poorly or not, there is still no excuse to treat your customers poorly.

Djinn.9245 · November 15, 2017

@nosleepdemon.1368 said:ANet's was an admission that they could have designed this better.

Read again - no such admission was made.

GrubySzymek.1362 · November 15, 2017

@AegisRunestone.8672 said:
@Kheldorn.5123 said:I don't think Anet deserve anything at this point. They used lootbox mechanic for one reason only - money. If all they care is money, we owe them nothing. More cynism towards anet actions from now on.

Maybe they could use that money to invest in a better balance team.

Since they didn't do this for 5 years it's clear they have no interest to invest in this area of the game.

Cyninja.2954 · November 15, 2017

@Djinn.9245 said:
@Cyninja.2954 said:The comparisons some people make, the pure entitlement that seeps out of some comments. Guess what, things are going to get even worse down the road.
Why? Because as GW2 grows older and the playerbase declines and revenue dries up, more drastic methods of monetisation will be required to keep the game working with this kind of monetisation method (no pay to win, cosmetics mostly from gem store, no subscription fee, living world updates inbetween expansions).
Was the mount addition not well received? Sure, it could have been handled better. I personally was/am more concerned with what this says about the state of the monetisation which arenanet are willing to try more than the:"Waaaaah, I can't get the skins I want."

You are absolutely correct - this type of scheme should signal the beginning of a kind of desperation that a company needs to dupe their customers out of more money than the customer would willingly pay. I wonder if Anet means to send this message that GW2 is going down the tubes? But whether a company is doing poorly or not, there is still no excuse to treat your customers poorly.

Poorly? Dupe?

The mount pricing and implementation model was very clear on how it works. At no point should there have been any confusion to a person with basic linguistic skills to understand how it works. So there is your "dupe" out the window, here read up on what to dupe actually means:

dupe - verb [ T ] uk /dʒuːp/ us /duːp/to deceive someone, usually by making that person do something that they did not intend to do:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/dupe

Words have meanings, use them properly and don't hyperbole.

As far as poorly, it's OPTIONAL COSMETIC CONTENT which in no way affects you as a customer or player besides maybe ruffeling your feathers because you can't purchase it the way you want. Unfortunate and yes, maybe they should have just made the individual mounts more expensive but directly purchasable (in which case people would be here crying about how overpriced they are, see the halloween mount threads on this exact topic). That's far from treating your customers poorly.

Majic.4801 · November 15, 2017

We gripe because we love.

Feanor.2358 · November 15, 2017

@Zakka.2153 said:How about no, and we stop pretending that these types of business practices are ok. Developers and Companies should strive to make their service excellent not nickel and dime their consumers any given chance.

See, this kind of attitude is precisely why developers are forced into exploring various monetization methods.

GrubySzymek.1362 · November 15, 2017

@Feanor.2358 said:
@nosleepdemon.1368 said:Recent events on Reddit regarding a certain other publisher certainly do put things in perspective, don't they? Have you guys
seen
the economy in
that
game? Full AAA price, with loot boxes on top that literally are pay to win. A bajillion different currencies and unlocks and crafting and cards and locked characters, all screaming at you to pay money to get passed the grind.
This really puts ArenaNet's "Here's 30 mounts have at it!" attitude into perspective. I'm not saying I agree with loot boxes in
any
form, but I sure am glad I threw my hat in with Gaille and her Krew, instead of those unbelievable kitten hats at that
other
publisher.
So, how about some love for our chums at ArenaNet? Not everything they do is always super popular, but for goodness sake, they are at least still human!

I'm just going to throw one more thing about the 30 mount skins. You know, as food for thought.> @Zakka.2153 said:

How about no, and we stop pretending that these types of business practices are ok. Developers and Companies should strive to make their service excellent not nickel and dime their consumers any given chance.

See, this kind of attitude is precisely why developers are forced into exploring various monetization methods.

Forced? Anet is doing better than expected financially. This means that new mount license is motivated only by greed.

Cyninja.2954 · November 15, 2017

@Kheldorn.5123 said:
@Feanor.2358 said:
@nosleepdemon.1368 said:Recent events on Reddit regarding a certain other publisher certainly do put things in perspective, don't they? Have you guys
seen
the economy in
that
game? Full AAA price, with loot boxes on top that literally are pay to win. A bajillion different currencies and unlocks and crafting and cards and locked characters, all screaming at you to pay money to get passed the grind.
This really puts ArenaNet's "Here's 30 mounts have at it!" attitude into perspective. I'm not saying I agree with loot boxes in
any
form, but I sure am glad I threw my hat in with Gaille and her Krew, instead of those unbelievable kitten hats at that
other
publisher.
So, how about some love for our chums at ArenaNet? Not everything they do is always super popular, but for goodness sake, they are at least still human!

I'm just going to throw one more thing about the 30 mount skins. You know, as food for thought.> @Zakka.2153 said:

How about no, and we stop pretending that these types of business practices are ok. Developers and Companies should strive to make their service excellent not nickel and dime their consumers any given chance.

See, this kind of attitude is precisely why developers are forced into exploring various monetization methods.

Forced? Anet is doing better than expected financially. This means that new mount license is motivated only by greed.

You do know that these kind of decisions are made months before the content even gets added into the game right?

As a business, it's ones responsibility to make sure the monetisation works. Months or even weeks beforehand no one could have known how successful PoF would have been or how well player retention would be. Especially with how people reacted to HoT and the changes coming with that expansion.

It's the developers (and publishers) responsibility to make sure the game stays fanancially viable and functional so that:

A. share- and stakeholders are happy (putting this first because quite frankly, this is a business)B. the companys staff and all involved are payed (putting this 2nd because again, peoples livehood>peoples leisure time)C. the customers are happy which first and foremost means the game has to stay alive and well. optional non essential content is way way way further down the list than keeping the game and servers as well as further developement alive and working

They tried something different, people did not like it. Fine. Future mount releases will be priced higher but individually purchasable.

GrubySzymek.1362 · November 15, 2017

@Cyninja.2954 said:
@Kheldorn.5123 said:
@Feanor.2358 said:
@nosleepdemon.1368 said:Recent events on Reddit regarding a certain other publisher certainly do put things in perspective, don't they? Have you guys
seen
the economy in
that
game? Full AAA price, with loot boxes on top that literally are pay to win. A bajillion different currencies and unlocks and crafting and cards and locked characters, all screaming at you to pay money to get passed the grind.
This really puts ArenaNet's "Here's 30 mounts have at it!" attitude into perspective. I'm not saying I agree with loot boxes in
any
form, but I sure am glad I threw my hat in with Gaille and her Krew, instead of those unbelievable kitten hats at that
other
publisher.
So, how about some love for our chums at ArenaNet? Not everything they do is always super popular, but for goodness sake, they are at least still human!

I'm just going to throw one more thing about the 30 mount skins. You know, as food for thought.> @Zakka.2153 said:

How about no, and we stop pretending that these types of business practices are ok. Developers and Companies should strive to make their service excellent not nickel and dime their consumers any given chance.

See, this kind of attitude is precisely why developers are forced into exploring various monetization methods.

Forced? Anet is doing better than expected financially. This means that new mount license is motivated only by greed.

You do know that these kind of decisions are made months before the content even gets added into the game right?

As a business, it's ones responsibility to make sure the monetisation works. Months or even weeks beforehand no one could have known how successful PoF would have been or how well player retention would be. Especially with how people reacted to HoT and the changes coming with that expansion.

It's the developers (and publishers) responsibility to make sure the game stays fanancially viable and functional so that:

A. share- and stakeholders are happy (putting this first because quite frankly, this is a business)B. the companys staff and all involved are payed (putting this 2nd because again, peoples livehood>peoples leisure time)C. the customers are happy which first and foremost means the game has to stay alive and well. optional non essential content is way way way further down the list than keeping the game and servers as well as further developement alive and working

They tried something different, people did not like it. Fine. Future mount releases will be priced higher but individually purchasable.

I'm okay with them going away with this in the future. But I see no reason to praise them for anything. Not to mention showing "sum luv". This is bussiness. It's cynical. They don't love you or me, they want our money. And they deserve nothing more but the same in return - cynical customers that value their money.

Whitworth.7259 · November 15, 2017

Gotta love anet

Cyninja.2954 · November 15, 2017

@Kheldorn.5123 said:
@Cyninja.2954 said:
@Kheldorn.5123 said:
@Feanor.2358 said:
@nosleepdemon.1368 said:Recent events on Reddit regarding a certain other publisher certainly do put things in perspective, don't they? Have you guys
seen
the economy in
that
game? Full AAA price, with loot boxes on top that literally are pay to win. A bajillion different currencies and unlocks and crafting and cards and locked characters, all screaming at you to pay money to get passed the grind.
This really puts ArenaNet's "Here's 30 mounts have at it!" attitude into perspective. I'm not saying I agree with loot boxes in
any
form, but I sure am glad I threw my hat in with Gaille and her Krew, instead of those unbelievable kitten hats at that
other
publisher.
So, how about some love for our chums at ArenaNet? Not everything they do is always super popular, but for goodness sake, they are at least still human!