Thank you for listening, ANet. (Re: Mount Adoption Licenses)

[Ashen.2907]

I think that mount prices are intended to subsidize the lower cost of PoF.

[Vyrulisse.1246]

Revisiting this a moment. Would anyone from A.net care to explain why the Mount Adoption Licenses are set to leave the gem store in seven days? I thought these were a "goal we can all work towards slowly"? Any particular reason other than just going right back to the artificial scarcity and predatory nonsense that seems to be the tactic of the day?

[Danikat.8537]

@"Vyrulisse.1246" said:Revisiting this a moment. Would anyone from A.net care to explain why the Mount Adoption Licenses are set to leave the gem store in seven days? I thought these were a "goal we can all work towards slowly"? Any particular reason other than just going right back to the artificial scarcity and predatory nonsense that seems to be the tactic of the day?

Yeah that surprised me too. I thought the first set of mount adoption licences was going to always be available to be a kind of 'default' set for people who wanted to gamble or work towards a full collection over time and others would be released alongside it. Now it looks like they're going to be replaced by the Istani set, which will presumably be replaced by another set at some point in time.

As long as they continue to have a 'cross-over' period where a new set is released before the old one is removed, and continue to let us choose specific mounts from each set of RNG ones I'm ok with that. But only because literally the day before the Mount Adoption Licence was reduced to 7 days only I'd decided I want to get the Istani ones instead. (My original plan was to finish making The Dreamer, sell it and use the gold to buy 30 Mount Adoption Licences, because in my head if I get the full set it's not gambling, but it's too expensive to do that with real money. My revised plan is to get all 15 Istani mounts, and knowing other sets may come out in future that might change again.)

If I was still hoping to save up and buy the original Mount Adoption Licences, or I was one of the people buying one whenever I had 400 gems to spare, I'd be extremely frustrated by this change.

Maybe one of these days I'll stop being surprised when companies pair one predatory tactic (RNG boxes) with another (artificial scarcity), but apparently today is not that day.

[Fremtid.3528]

@Danikat.8537 said:

@"Vyrulisse.1246" said:Revisiting this a moment. Would anyone from A.net care to explain why the Mount Adoption Licenses are set to leave the gem store in seven days? I thought these were a "goal we can all work towards slowly"? Any particular reason other than just going right back to the artificial scarcity and predatory nonsense that seems to be the tactic of the day?

Yeah that surprised me too. I thought the first set of mount adoption licences was going to always be available to be a kind of 'default' set for people who wanted to gamble or work towards a full collection over time and others would be released alongside it. Now it looks like they're going to be replaced by the Istani set, which will presumably be replaced by another set at some point in time.

As long as they continue to have a 'cross-over' period where a new set is released before the old one is removed, and continue to let us choose specific mounts from each set of RNG ones I'm ok with that. But only because literally the day before the Mount Adoption Licence was reduced to 7 days only I'd decided I want to get the Istani ones instead. (My original plan was to finish making The Dreamer, sell it and use the gold to buy 30 Mount Adoption Licences, because in my head if I get the full set it's not gambling, but it's too expensive to do that with real money. My revised plan is to get all 15 Istani mounts, and knowing other sets may come out in future that might change again.)

If I was still hoping to save up and buy the original Mount Adoption Licences, or I was one of the people buying one whenever I had 400 gems to spare, I'd be extremely frustrated by this change.

Maybe one of these days I'll stop being surprised when companies pair one predatory tactic (RNG boxes) with another (artificial scarcity), but apparently today is not that day.

The Istani set is a completely new set of skins so it doesn't invalidate the old licenses. It's a completely brand new 15 set of skins with a completely different price set and terms.

[Martimus.6027]

These are virtual items.

Their production cost only has to be paid, really, once as the artists create them.

What many games with in-game shops fail to realize, is that if they lower their prices, they will make far more sales. It's the entire reason Wal-Mart became a thing. They lowered prices on just about everything, and now when people go into the store, they buy more than just that one item they came to get. You go in for one thing and leave with $100 worth of stuff.

Game devs aren't really very good economists (and I seriously doubt they have a hired economic theorist on staff to suggest the prices of these items).

If they would reduce the price of literally everything on their store by HALF, the amount of money made would just explode, especially considering that these are virtual items that don't run out and have a one time production cost.

Plus: warning to you A.net: This kind of gambling is about to be shut down. It is flat out gambling and it doesn't even have decent odds for the money spent. You are basically selling mount loot boxes with random contents. If you've been paying attention to Destiny 2 and Star Wars: Battlefront II, you'd know that this type of situation is rapidly coming to an end. And a good thing, too.

[DarthFurby.3970]

@"Martimus.6027" said:These are virtual items.

Their production cost only has to be paid, really, once as the artists create them.

What many games with in-game shops fail to realize, is that if they lower their prices, they will make far more sales. It's the entire reason Wal-Mart became a thing. They lowered prices on just about everything, and now when people go into the store, they buy more than just that one item they came to get. You go in for one thing and leave with $100 worth of stuff.

Game devs aren't really very good economists (and I seriously doubt they have a hired economic theorist on staff to suggest the prices of these items).

If they would reduce the price of literally everything on their store by HALF, the amount of money made would just explode, especially considering that these are virtual items that don't run out and have a one time production cost.

Plus: warning to you A.net: This kind of gambling is about to be shut down. It is flat out gambling and it doesn't even have decent odds for the money spent. You are basically selling mount loot boxes with random contents. If you've been paying attention to Destiny 2 and Star Wars: Battlefront II, you'd know that this type of situation is rapidly coming to an end. And a good thing, too.

But, it isn't really gambling in the truest sense. You know what you are getting and can not lose anything you put in. You are purchasing a chance at an item, and any outcome has value.

None of those mounts look bad, and frankly a mount with four dye channels is worth it enough. After buying two bundles of the new licenses I got practically all the ones I wanted and the next bundle will give me all of them, and it wasn't that many gems.

It isn't really random, there aren't repeats. You can get them all pretty easily, and it's not that expensive when you look at "loot boxes" in other games.

Also, I like this sort of gamble. I prefer to take the chance and see what I get. I hope they don't remove this sort of venture from games as the surprise of victory for money put in would disappear.

[Martimus.6027]

@DarthFurby.3970 said:

@"Martimus.6027" said:These are virtual items.

Their production cost only has to be paid, really, once as the artists create them.

What many games with in-game shops fail to realize, is that if they lower their prices, they will make far more sales. It's the entire reason Wal-Mart became a thing. They lowered prices on just about everything, and now when people go into the store, they buy more than just that one item they came to get. You go in for one thing and leave with $100 worth of stuff.

Game devs aren't really very good economists (and I seriously doubt they have a hired economic theorist on staff to suggest the prices of these items).

If they would reduce the price of literally everything on their store by HALF, the amount of money made would just explode, especially considering that these are virtual items that don't run out and have a one time production cost.

Plus: warning to you A.net: This kind of gambling is about to be shut down. It is flat out gambling and it doesn't even have decent odds for the money spent. You are basically selling mount loot boxes with random contents. If you've been paying attention to Destiny 2 and Star Wars: Battlefront II, you'd know that this type of situation is rapidly coming to an end. And a good thing, too.

But, it isn't really gambling in the truest sense. You know what you are getting and can not lose anything you put in. You are purchasing a chance at an item, and any outcome has value.

None of those mounts look bad, and frankly a mount with four dye channels is worth it enough. After buying two bundles of the new licenses I got practically all the ones I wanted and the next bundle will give me all of them, and it wasn't that many gems.

It isn't really random, there aren't repeats. You can get them all pretty easily, and it's not that expensive when you look at "loot boxes" in other games.

Also, I like this sort of gamble. I prefer to take the chance and see what I get. I hope they don't remove this sort of venture from games as the surprise of victory for money put in would disappear.

Those are very valid points...But it still is a type of a gamble since you aren't getting precisely what you spent your money on.

It's still a possible bait-and-switch.

"Hey, want this neat mount skin? Give us money and you may be able to get it. OOPS! You didn't get it, now give us money to try to get it again. HAHA OOPS!"

Come on....it's a bit much.

[DarthFurby.3970]

@Martimus.6027 said:

@DarthFurby.3970 said:

@Martimus.6027 said:These are virtual items.

Their production cost only has to be paid, really, once as the artists create them.

What many games with in-game shops fail to realize, is that if they lower their prices, they will make far more sales. It's the entire reason Wal-Mart became a thing. They lowered prices on just about everything, and now when people go into the store, they buy more than just that one item they came to get. You go in for one thing and leave with $100 worth of stuff.

Game devs aren't really very good economists (and I seriously doubt they have a hired economic theorist on staff to suggest the prices of these items).

If they would reduce the price of literally everything on their store by HALF, the amount of money made would just explode, especially considering that these are virtual items that don't run out and have a one time production cost.

Plus: warning to you A.net: This kind of gambling is about to be shut down. It is flat out gambling and it doesn't even have decent odds for the money spent. You are basically selling mount loot boxes with random contents. If you've been paying attention to Destiny 2 and Star Wars: Battlefront II, you'd know that this type of situation is rapidly coming to an end. And a good thing, too.

But, it isn't really gambling in the truest sense. You know what you are getting and can not lose anything you put in. You are purchasing a chance at an item, and any outcome has value.

None of those mounts look bad, and frankly a mount with four dye channels is worth it enough. After buying two bundles of the new licenses I got practically all the ones I wanted and the next bundle will give me all of them, and it wasn't that many gems.

It isn't really random, there aren't repeats. You can get them all pretty easily, and it's not that expensive when you look at "loot boxes" in other games.

Also, I like this sort of gamble. I prefer to take the chance and see what I get. I hope they don't remove this sort of venture from games as the surprise of victory for money put in would disappear.

Those are very valid points...But it still is a type of a gamble since you aren't getting precisely what you spent your money on.

It's still a possible bait-and-switch.

"Hey, want this neat mount skin? Give us money and you may be able to get it. OOPS! You didn't get it, now give us money to try to get it again. HAHA OOPS!"

Come on....it's a bit much.

It's a gamble for the people that like taking chances for possibly less than ideal results, with a frankly pretty large margin for success. But, you are getting exactly what you spent your money on, a chance. It might not result in what you hoped for but you bought a chance.

When taking a chance you should always expect a degree of error. You can see which are possible in the pool and take into account what you might get, and think about what you can live with it. It is really more of a compromise. I still stand by they all have value due to having all dye channels open.

Also if you don't want to take the chance they released the more expensive choose which you want license for the new series. Though personally you are probably better off buying one or two bundles. You'll get 10 mounts and more than likely a few you wanted.

[Danikat.8537]

@Fremtid.3528 said:

@Danikat.8537 said:

@"Vyrulisse.1246" said:Revisiting this a moment. Would anyone from A.net care to explain why the Mount Adoption Licenses are set to leave the gem store in seven days? I thought these were a "goal we can all work towards slowly"? Any particular reason other than just going right back to the artificial scarcity and predatory nonsense that seems to be the tactic of the day?

Yeah that surprised me too. I thought the first set of mount adoption licences was going to always be available to be a kind of 'default' set for people who wanted to gamble or work towards a full collection over time and others would be released alongside it. Now it looks like they're going to be replaced by the Istani set, which will presumably be replaced by another set at some point in time.

As long as they continue to have a 'cross-over' period where a new set is released before the old one is removed, and continue to let us choose specific mounts from each set of RNG ones I'm ok with that. But only because literally the day before the Mount Adoption Licence was reduced to 7 days only I'd decided I want to get the Istani ones instead. (My original plan was to finish making The Dreamer, sell it and use the gold to buy 30 Mount Adoption Licences, because in my head if I get the full set it's not gambling, but it's too expensive to do that with real money. My revised plan is to get all 15 Istani mounts, and knowing other sets may come out in future that might change again.)

If I was still hoping to save up and buy the original Mount Adoption Licences, or I was one of the people buying one whenever I had 400 gems to spare, I'd be extremely frustrated by this change.

Maybe one of these days I'll stop being surprised when companies pair one predatory tactic (RNG boxes) with another (artificial scarcity), but apparently today is not that day.

The Istani set is a completely new set of skins so it doesn't invalidate the old licenses. It's a completely brand new 15 set of skins with a completely different price set and terms.

Did you mean to quote my post?

I didn't say anything about the Istani set invalidating the old licences or them being the same skins (in fact I specifically said I'd decided to get these ones instead because I like the new skins more). It seems like you may have been responding to a different post.

I did say the Istani set seems to be replacing the originals, but that's because Anet is removing the original Mount Adoption Licences from the store, not because I think they're somehow 'invalid'. (It's actually the opposite - because I think they're two completely different sets I don't understand why they can't both remain in the store.)

[Fremtid.3528]

@Danikat.8537 said:

@Fremtid.3528 said:

@Danikat.8537 said:

@"Vyrulisse.1246" said:Revisiting this a moment. Would anyone from A.net care to explain why the Mount Adoption Licenses are set to leave the gem store in seven days? I thought these were a "goal we can all work towards slowly"? Any particular reason other than just going right back to the artificial scarcity and predatory nonsense that seems to be the tactic of the day?

Yeah that surprised me too. I thought the first set of mount adoption licences was going to always be available to be a kind of 'default' set for people who wanted to gamble or work towards a full collection over time and others would be released alongside it. Now it looks like they're going to be replaced by the Istani set, which will presumably be replaced by another set at some point in time.

As long as they continue to have a 'cross-over' period where a new set is released before the old one is removed, and continue to let us choose specific mounts from each set of RNG ones I'm ok with that. But only because literally the day before the Mount Adoption Licence was reduced to 7 days only I'd decided I want to get the Istani ones instead. (My original plan was to finish making The Dreamer, sell it and use the gold to buy 30 Mount Adoption Licences, because in my head if I get the full set it's not gambling, but it's too expensive to do that with real money. My revised plan is to get all 15 Istani mounts, and knowing other sets may come out in future that might change again.)

If I was still hoping to save up and buy the original Mount Adoption Licences, or I was one of the people buying one whenever I had 400 gems to spare, I'd be extremely frustrated by this change.

Maybe one of these days I'll stop being surprised when companies pair one predatory tactic (RNG boxes) with another (artificial scarcity), but apparently today is not that day.

The Istani set is a completely new set of skins so it doesn't invalidate the old licenses. It's a completely brand new 15 set of skins with a completely different price set and terms.

Did you mean to quote my post?

I didn't say anything about the Istani set invalidating the old licences or them being the same skins (in fact I specifically said I'd decided to get these ones instead because I like the new skins more). It seems like you may have been responding to a different post.

I did say the Istani set seems to be replacing the originals, but that's because Anet is removing the original Mount Adoption Licences from the store, not because I think they're somehow 'invalid'. (It's actually the opposite - because I think they're two completely different sets I don't understand why they can't both remain in the store.)

I'm sure it's the same old hat, they'll rerelease them at a later date. Probably for a limited time. Only to release them again a few months later again, for a limited time. It's kinda a tired thing, not coz i miss things I want but because I'm sick of all the recycled stuff being marketed as something new and limited when its literally been out years. Like it happens so often now when people miss an item they've waited for people are like "don't worry it'll be in the store again in a few months just keep a closer watch this time." Artificial scarcity is just that, artificial.

[DarcShriek.5829]

@DarthFurby.3970 said:

@Martimus.6027 said:

@DarthFurby.3970 said:

@Martimus.6027 said:These are virtual items.

Their production cost only has to be paid, really, once as the artists create them.

What many games with in-game shops fail to realize, is that if they lower their prices, they will make far more sales. It's the entire reason Wal-Mart became a thing. They lowered prices on just about everything, and now when people go into the store, they buy more than just that one item they came to get. You go in for one thing and leave with $100 worth of stuff.

Game devs aren't really very good economists (and I seriously doubt they have a hired economic theorist on staff to suggest the prices of these items).

If they would reduce the price of literally everything on their store by HALF, the amount of money made would just explode, especially considering that these are virtual items that don't run out and have a one time production cost.

Plus: warning to you A.net: This kind of gambling is about to be shut down. It is flat out gambling and it doesn't even have decent odds for the money spent. You are basically selling mount loot boxes with random contents. If you've been paying attention to Destiny 2 and Star Wars: Battlefront II, you'd know that this type of situation is rapidly coming to an end. And a good thing, too.

But, it isn't really gambling in the truest sense. You know what you are getting and can not lose anything you put in. You are purchasing a chance at an item, and any outcome has value.

None of those mounts look bad, and frankly a mount with four dye channels is worth it enough. After buying two bundles of the new licenses I got practically all the ones I wanted and the next bundle will give me all of them, and it wasn't that many gems.

It isn't really random, there aren't repeats. You can get them all pretty easily, and it's not that expensive when you look at "loot boxes" in other games.

Also, I like this sort of gamble. I prefer to take the chance and see what I get. I hope they don't remove this sort of venture from games as the surprise of victory for money put in would disappear.

Those are very valid points...But it still is a type of a gamble since you aren't getting precisely what you spent your money on.

It's still a possible bait-and-switch.

"Hey, want this neat mount skin? Give us money and you may be able to get it. OOPS! You didn't get it, now give us money to try to get it again. HAHA OOPS!"

Come on....it's a bit much.

It's a gamble for the people that like taking chances for possibly less than ideal results, with a frankly pretty large margin for success. But, you are getting exactly what you spent your money on, a chance. It might not result in what you hoped for but you bought a chance.

When taking a chance you should always expect a degree of error. You can see which are possible in the pool and take into account what you might get, and think about what you can live with it. It is really more of a compromise. I still stand by they all have value due to having all dye channels open.

Also if you don't want to take the chance they released the more expensive choose which you want license for the new series. Though personally you are probably better off buying one or two bundles. You'll get 10 mounts and more than likely a few you wanted.

In the US, the federal courts have said it's not gambling. You're paying for a skin, you're getting a skin. If you feel they are wrong, you should take it up with them.

[Majirah.5089]

@Martimus.6027 said:

@DarthFurby.3970 said:

@Martimus.6027 said:These are virtual items.

Their production cost only has to be paid, really, once as the artists create them.

What many games with in-game shops fail to realize, is that if they lower their prices, they will make far more sales. It's the entire reason Wal-Mart became a thing. They lowered prices on just about everything, and now when people go into the store, they buy more than just that one item they came to get. You go in for one thing and leave with $100 worth of stuff.

Game devs aren't really very good economists (and I seriously doubt they have a hired economic theorist on staff to suggest the prices of these items).

If they would reduce the price of literally everything on their store by HALF, the amount of money made would just explode, especially considering that these are virtual items that don't run out and have a one time production cost.

Plus: warning to you A.net: This kind of gambling is about to be shut down. It is flat out gambling and it doesn't even have decent odds for the money spent. You are basically selling mount loot boxes with random contents. If you've been paying attention to Destiny 2 and Star Wars: Battlefront II, you'd know that this type of situation is rapidly coming to an end. And a good thing, too.

But, it isn't really gambling in the truest sense. You know what you are getting and can not lose anything you put in. You are purchasing a chance at an item, and any outcome has value.

None of those mounts look bad, and frankly a mount with four dye channels is worth it enough. After buying two bundles of the new licenses I got practically all the ones I wanted and the next bundle will give me all of them, and it wasn't that many gems.

It isn't really random, there aren't repeats. You can get them all pretty easily, and it's not that expensive when you look at "loot boxes" in other games.

Also, I like this sort of gamble. I prefer to take the chance and see what I get. I hope they don't remove this sort of venture from games as the surprise of victory for money put in would disappear.

Those are very valid points...But it still is a type of a gamble since you aren't getting precisely what you spent your money on.

It's still a possible bait-and-switch.

"Hey, want this neat mount skin? Give us money and you may be able to get it. OOPS! You didn't get it, now give us money to try to get it again. HAHA OOPS!"

Come on....it's a bit much.

You are getting exactly what you paid for. It’s not bait and switch. It has been clearly stated that you will get a random mount out of a pool of mounts, but not a repeat. That is exactly what happens. It was never promised that you would get the exact one you want unless you use the select adoption option for the Istan mounts. In which case you still get exactly what you purchased.

It’s also not a gamble because there is no possibility of a loss.

[DarthFurby.3970]

@DarcShriek.5829 said:

@DarthFurby.3970 said:

@Martimus.6027 said:

@DarthFurby.3970 said:

@Martimus.6027 said:These are virtual items.

Their production cost only has to be paid, really, once as the artists create them.

What many games with in-game shops fail to realize, is that if they lower their prices, they will make far more sales. It's the entire reason Wal-Mart became a thing. They lowered prices on just about everything, and now when people go into the store, they buy more than just that one item they came to get. You go in for one thing and leave with $100 worth of stuff.

Game devs aren't really very good economists (and I seriously doubt they have a hired economic theorist on staff to suggest the prices of these items).

If they would reduce the price of literally everything on their store by HALF, the amount of money made would just explode, especially considering that these are virtual items that don't run out and have a one time production cost.

Plus: warning to you A.net: This kind of gambling is about to be shut down. It is flat out gambling and it doesn't even have decent odds for the money spent. You are basically selling mount loot boxes with random contents. If you've been paying attention to Destiny 2 and Star Wars: Battlefront II, you'd know that this type of situation is rapidly coming to an end. And a good thing, too.

But, it isn't really gambling in the truest sense. You know what you are getting and can not lose anything you put in. You are purchasing a chance at an item, and any outcome has value.

None of those mounts look bad, and frankly a mount with four dye channels is worth it enough. After buying two bundles of the new licenses I got practically all the ones I wanted and the next bundle will give me all of them, and it wasn't that many gems.

It isn't really random, there aren't repeats. You can get them all pretty easily, and it's not that expensive when you look at "loot boxes" in other games.

Also, I like this sort of gamble. I prefer to take the chance and see what I get. I hope they don't remove this sort of venture from games as the surprise of victory for money put in would disappear.

Those are very valid points...But it still is a type of a gamble since you aren't getting precisely what you spent your money on.

It's still a possible bait-and-switch.

"Hey, want this neat mount skin? Give us money and you may be able to get it. OOPS! You didn't get it, now give us money to try to get it again. HAHA OOPS!"

Come on....it's a bit much.

It's a gamble for the people that like taking chances for possibly less than ideal results, with a frankly pretty large margin for success. But, you are getting exactly what you spent your money on, a chance. It might not result in what you hoped for but you bought a chance.

When taking a chance you should always expect a degree of error. You can see which are possible in the pool and take into account what you might get, and think about what you can live with it. It is really more of a compromise. I still stand by they all have value due to having all dye channels open.

Also if you don't want to take the chance they released the more expensive choose which you want license for the new series. Though personally you are probably better off buying one or two bundles. You'll get 10 mounts and more than likely a few you wanted.

In the US, the federal courts have said it's not gambling. You're paying for a skin, you're getting a skin. If you feel they are wrong, you should take it up with them.

Did you quote the wrong person? I wasn't arguing that it was gambling, quite the opposite.

[Leo G.4501]

@Martimus.6027 said:These are virtual items.

Their production cost only has to be paid, really, once as the artists create them.

What many games with in-game shops fail to realize, is that if they lower their prices, they will make far more sales. It's the entire reason Wal-Mart became a thing. They lowered prices on just about everything, and now when people go into the store, they buy more than just that one item they came to get.

Difference there is Wal-mart is selling tangible goods. Food, clothes, shoes, hardware, electronics....you cannot compare that to Gem Store goods, all items that are not only intangible, but purely optional and provide no welfare attributes to them, i.e. you want people to buy more food and clothes because it improves the welfare of those that buy them....buying more skins or bank slots really is only funneling money away from people.

You might be right and people would purchase more goods from the gem store because its cheap, but many of those people would have bought stuff anyway. And, to be frank, if you're simple enough to buy more and more just because its cheap, you're being preyed upon when likely you should be saving your money anyway. So coming from my humanitarian side and not my industry consideration side, you're advocating for Anet to take advantage of the poorer individuals that play the game.

@Martimus.6027 said:Game devs aren't really very good economists (and I seriously doubt they have a hired economic theorist on staff to suggest the prices of these items).

If they would reduce the price of literally everything on their store by HALF, the amount of money made would just explode, especially considering that these are virtual items that don't run out and have a one time production cost.

I always assumed that at least Anet are self aware that cosmetics have a diminishing return. If you have a billion different skins, adding a few hundred more will not net you as much money as if you had only 500 different skins and you added 5 more. That isn't to say adding more skins is bad, just that selling them like gum on the street corner is going to lower their inherent value as you add more in the future. They can't just lower prices by half because that's lowering all prices in the future by half while also saturating options. Saturated options is less incentive to buy more things thus you end up with releasing boat loads of cosmetics for pennies that only a few handful of individuals care about.