Fuck this, I'm actually going to comment on MountGate
Thursday, November 16th, 2017 16:54![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cashewThanks for making me aware of MountGate, tanithryudo. Now I'm commenting instead of writing NaNo like I ought to be. >:(
First, I'm more or less caught up on what Anet did, what the responses are, and I'm going to say all of this just convinces me to stop playing. Like. Stop. Period. I've had it. I was already not happy about the decisions that Anet made regarding mounts (giving them faster than swiftness speed), so that is it. I am done. After complaining and complaining for over 5 years about GW2, I am finished with this franchise.
Second, to all those who say give them time to learn from their mistakes, the truth of the matter is very clear: Anet doesn't think it's a mistake. Sorry, but they don't. I'll get to the why later, but I'm going to address the gamer side of things, this relentless giving a pass for anti-consumer practices. For those who say, "Let's hope they don't do it again." I say to you, look at the progression of the micro-transaction. Not only has the gem store gotten more and more expensive skins, but they've gotten more and more RNG with each pass. First, it was the BL chests RNG items, but those were trade-able. Then it's the BLC locked glider skins which can't be sold. Now, it's straight up selling RNG. It's not going to get better, it's only going to get worse. Then there are those who say, "Vote with your wallet." To you, I point out that in a micro-transaction sales model, 80% to 95% of the income comes from 5% of the player base. So even if you manage to get a 90% majority of players to band together, you will make less than 1% impact on their revenue.
Therefore, the only real impact that can make Anet feel the consequence of their mistake is to simply quit. As long as you're on that game, you are giving the whales someone to show off to, and as long as whales have someone to show off to, they will buy from the gem store, no matter how ludicrous. You want your voice to be heard? Ironically, the only way is to walk away and take as many people with you as you can. Quitting the game is voting with the only wallet that still holds any sway.
Third, Anet's response only solidifies my belief that they don't think they made a mistake. Here's why:
Now, I want you to focus on this bit:
Let me break that down in real speak:
"Dedicating resources into making a single item that sells well to the majority of the playerbase is costly. Taking into account the huge variety of taste amongst literally millions of players, it is unlikely that we can monetize any single item toward even upwards of 50% of the player base. Therefore, to justify the cost and make a profit, we must place the price point of the item at the unreasonable 2000 gems as seen in something like the legendary-esque Jackal skin.
"However, if we use an RNG mechanic, all assets in the selection pool can be monetized by using it as a motivation for the player base to play the RNG. If the player received an item they were not hoping for, the slightly improved odds will further motivate the players to spend again. Thus, a player who would have spent only 400 gems once for the item they want can be monetized twice under the RNG model, inducing them to spend 800 gems, or, in the case of whales, repeated ad nauseum until they receive the desired item. Our statistical analysis places the necessary starting pool for highest monetizing percentage, assuming a linear decay for repeated gambling, at somewhere around 1/30, therefore we released 30 skins.
"While we will lose a 400 gem sale here or there from the more discerning players, our research has demonstrated that more than 80% of players are at least willing to risk the RNG once for a chance at something they want. After they have made the first purchase, over half of those players will, statistically, re-purchase in the hopes of getting what they want. Our economic model demonstrates that there is a definitive revenue increase due to these behaviors and that is why we decided to release the mount skins as RNG instead of direct purchases."
And that is why I refuse to play this game. I will not keep confirming your statistical model. I will not contribute anymore to your predatory behavior. I can only hope that sooner or later, the rest of your consumer base realize they've been played, but, statistically, that chance is pretty low. So, I can only take satisfaction in not supporting your BS anymore.
tanithryudo. Now I'm commenting instead of writing NaNo like I ought to be. >:(First, I'm more or less caught up on what Anet did, what the responses are, and I'm going to say all of this just convinces me to stop playing. Like. Stop. Period. I've had it. I was already not happy about the decisions that Anet made regarding mounts (giving them faster than swiftness speed), so that is it. I am done. After complaining and complaining for over 5 years about GW2, I am finished with this franchise.
Second, to all those who say give them time to learn from their mistakes, the truth of the matter is very clear: Anet doesn't think it's a mistake. Sorry, but they don't. I'll get to the why later, but I'm going to address the gamer side of things, this relentless giving a pass for anti-consumer practices. For those who say, "Let's hope they don't do it again." I say to you, look at the progression of the micro-transaction. Not only has the gem store gotten more and more expensive skins, but they've gotten more and more RNG with each pass. First, it was the BL chests RNG items, but those were trade-able. Then it's the BLC locked glider skins which can't be sold. Now, it's straight up selling RNG. It's not going to get better, it's only going to get worse. Then there are those who say, "Vote with your wallet." To you, I point out that in a micro-transaction sales model, 80% to 95% of the income comes from 5% of the player base. So even if you manage to get a 90% majority of players to band together, you will make less than 1% impact on their revenue.
Therefore, the only real impact that can make Anet feel the consequence of their mistake is to simply quit. As long as you're on that game, you are giving the whales someone to show off to, and as long as whales have someone to show off to, they will buy from the gem store, no matter how ludicrous. You want your voice to be heard? Ironically, the only way is to walk away and take as many people with you as you can. Quitting the game is voting with the only wallet that still holds any sway.
Third, Anet's response only solidifies my belief that they don't think they made a mistake. Here's why:
Hi,
We made a commitment to you in March 2012 that we’d fund GW2 live development through non-pay-to-win microtransactions. We try different ideas, but we always hold true to that commitment. We’ve been collecting and discussing your feedback on the Mount Adoption License, and today I’d like to acknowledge and respond to the concerns you’ve raised, and to share our perspective with you.
You have valid concerns about random boxes. We hoped that the design of the Mount Adoption License would be reassuring. In this case, we made some missteps:
- At a time when there’s a lot of debate about random boxes in gaming, we should have anticipated that a new system with a random element would cause alarm.
- We released mount skins with three different purchase models, but with the majority of skins released so far through the Adoption License. It’s easy to perceive this as intentionally channeling you toward randomization.
- The Adoption License is a large set at 30 skins. We stand by the work our artists put into each skin, but it’s understandable to see this as pushing down the odds of acquiring any one skin, and to worry that we might add more skins to lower the chances further.
Here are some of the benefits we had in mind when designing the Mount Adoption License:
- You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price.
- It uses a progressive mechanic. Every license gives you a new skin to use and increases the odds of acquiring any remaining skins.
- You’ve requested variety, and this is a way to support variety. Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins. Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin.
Microtransactions can be polarizing, and we’ve received both positive and negative feedback on the license. We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made, but I want to confirm to you that our next planned mount skin releases will focus on individual sales like the Reforged Warhound and bundles like the Spooky Mounts Pack. We will not add any skins to the currently available Adoption License, thus not pushing down the odds of acquiring any one skin in that set.
We appreciate the thoughtful feedback many of you have provided, and that you hold us to high standards for monetization. It’s been a challenging but wonderful goal to support live development and Living World purely through optional microtransactions, and it’s your support that’s made that possible. Thank you.
~ MO
Now, I want you to focus on this bit:
"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."
Let me break that down in real speak:
"Dedicating resources into making a single item that sells well to the majority of the playerbase is costly. Taking into account the huge variety of taste amongst literally millions of players, it is unlikely that we can monetize any single item toward even upwards of 50% of the player base. Therefore, to justify the cost and make a profit, we must place the price point of the item at the unreasonable 2000 gems as seen in something like the legendary-esque Jackal skin.
"However, if we use an RNG mechanic, all assets in the selection pool can be monetized by using it as a motivation for the player base to play the RNG. If the player received an item they were not hoping for, the slightly improved odds will further motivate the players to spend again. Thus, a player who would have spent only 400 gems once for the item they want can be monetized twice under the RNG model, inducing them to spend 800 gems, or, in the case of whales, repeated ad nauseum until they receive the desired item. Our statistical analysis places the necessary starting pool for highest monetizing percentage, assuming a linear decay for repeated gambling, at somewhere around 1/30, therefore we released 30 skins.
"While we will lose a 400 gem sale here or there from the more discerning players, our research has demonstrated that more than 80% of players are at least willing to risk the RNG once for a chance at something they want. After they have made the first purchase, over half of those players will, statistically, re-purchase in the hopes of getting what they want. Our economic model demonstrates that there is a definitive revenue increase due to these behaviors and that is why we decided to release the mount skins as RNG instead of direct purchases."
And that is why I refuse to play this game. I will not keep confirming your statistical model. I will not contribute anymore to your predatory behavior. I can only hope that sooner or later, the rest of your consumer base realize they've been played, but, statistically, that chance is pretty low. So, I can only take satisfaction in not supporting your BS anymore.
 |   Tags: |
