Mounts at 2000 gems actually ARE ok and here's why (xpost from reddit) — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Mounts at 2000 gems actually ARE ok and here's why (xpost from reddit)

This was posted by user DragonWhimsy on reddit/guildwars2 and he raised some excellent points that I wanted to share.

Original post link: https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/7gd33r/mounts_at_2000_gems_actually_are_ok_and_heres_why/

"So we as a community are doing the outrage over mount pricing in the gem store thing again. And while that is understandable to a certain extent it is also something ANet must do whether we like it or not.

Let us put the situation into context:
-These mounts are not simple re-colors like the Halloween and most of the License mounts.Those skins were low effort to create and the 2000 gem mounts are high effort with completely new looks, new effects, sounds, and sometimes animations.
-$25 is the industry standard for MMO mounts. Even in games with larger player bases and a required subscription.
-The default mount skins are beautiful. ANet didn't skimp on them like they did with the default glider. No one should feel bad riding around on the default mount skins.
-You don't pay a subscription for this game and the store is not P2W.
-Calling the game Fashion Wars 2 in jest does NOT make high priced cosmetics P2W no matter how many times you try to equate the two.
-If Anet made the mounts 800 gems you know very well you would go to the Silverwastes and farm gold and would never spend a penny on these mounts. That is why if they lowered the price they would get less money even if more people "bought" them. Yes many more times the amount of people would have the mount but many less people would spend money on them.
-ANet must find a way to justify having 300-400 people working on GW2. That is a large amount of people for a game in this genre. That is why we have such a strong content cadence. For comparison Bungie has 500 people working on Destiny and they have a lot less releases every year and charge for every single patch AND have a cash shop. GW2 took a hit after HoT's and the game likely cannot continue the pace of current development without increasing profits in a time when NCSoft's investors wonder why the entire company hasn't moved to mobile development after Lineage M's massive profits.
-The mount is NOT nearly the price of the expansion. The expansion was sold very cheaply with the knowledge that some people would pay more for mount skins and carry those of us who didn't want to pay for a $50 expansion. Mount skins aren't a supplement to PoF. PoF exists to sell these mount skins. These mount skins are why NCSoft has allowed ANet to continue with it current massive content output for a game that was not generating nearly enough profits to warrant it post-HoT's.

Now let's look at some alternatives:
-ANet could get rid of the gold to gem conversions entirely. Then everyone has to pay real money for all gem store items. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.
-ANet could put in an optional subscription that would slowly get more and more benefits over time as ANet became more and more dependent on it which would relegate non-subscribers to being second-class citizens. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.
-ANet could charge money for every patch.
-ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.
-ANet could drastically cut content updates and either fire a bunch of people or put them in a mobile game's division.
So my question to those of you who really want to buy a peacock raptor skin for $10... which of those solutions appeals to you? Because you have to pick one.
GW2 must adapt or wither. It has had a historically gentle cash shop which worked back when GW2 was the new kid on the block. Now that we're five years in it MUST adapt to a smaller player base. Mount skins is that solution. It's cosmetic and optional and in no way P2W. That is why ANet just spent the last 2 years making an entire expansion centered around them. It's their solution. It's their way of generating more profits and allow them to continue to fully focus on GW2 without ruining the game by making it P2W. If you REALLY want to take that solution away from them then you have to pick one of the other solutions.
Finally, those of you who think that the BattleFront 2 players are your brothers-in-arms over matters like this should know that actually couldn't be further from the truth. They are fighting EA to get what we already have. Cosmetics in their cash shop. It's not the same thing at all.

Quick Clarification:
I'm not saying GW2 is in danger or that it's going anywhere. No matter what GW2 is successful enough to be around for years to come. This is in reference to just how much development resources it will get. Will ANet continue to make it their main focus or will the bulk of their team move on to something new? Mount skin sales is going to be in large part what determines that."

<134

Comments

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Yeah but most other games also don't let you convert in game currency into something for the cash shop either and I think a lot more people would be impacted if that feature was removed. Don't have a dog in the show but the the Reddit posters points are not out of line.

    On a side note I think a model like ESO where a sub is an optional thing that provides additional props could work here as well as long it was optional. I think most people that spend some real cash on gems today do that already as long as they are enjoying the game and content and figured they would be spending additional if it was a sub based game. Wouldn't recommend GW ever becoming a required subscription game since that's not their niche and it wouldn't be received well at all, but an optional one...perchance.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • -$25 is the industry standard for MMO mounts. Even in games with larger player bases and a required subscription.

    do you have an example of other games where mounts are $25 (apart from WoW)? I'm honestly curious

    70 'mains' and waiting for more slots
    | 61 Asura | 6 Charr | 1 Norn | 1 Human | 1 Sylvari |

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @castlemanic.3198 said:
    None of that justifies the high price of solo mount skins. Literally none of it, not even all of it combined justifies the high price of solo mount skins.

    People assign value to things differently. At any reasonable price point, there will be those that feel the price is too high and those that feel it may be too low. Whether one feels the current price is worth it versus whether the price is justified are two entirely different things.

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Industry standard is not the correct way of looking at things since GW1 broke the industry standard with its model and it was critically acclaimed and successful enough to make GW2.

    The argument that this pays for the game is also twisting the argument since lowering the cost would sell more and thus also fund the game. It is about finding the sweet spot. 400 gems is likely too low whereas I feel 2000 gems is too high, esp given gems are sold in multiples of 800.

    At the end of the day my stance is, buy or do not buy and leave the metrics they seem to rely on in their entirety, to sort it all out.

    What sleep is here? What dreams there are in the unctuous coiling of the snakes mortal shuffling. weapon in my hand. My hand the arcing deathblow at the end of all things. The horror. The horror. I embrace it. . .

  • Torolan.5816Torolan.5816 Member ✭✭✭

    Let´s talk just a little bit about services and business then.

    *If Anet is unable to keep the game running without this and that, they have the option to close the door. That may sound harsh, but objectively it´s the truth.
    *If Anet is unwilling to support the F2P and B2P players anymore, they have to set us out in the cold.
    *If Anet does not earn money with Gold to Gems, they have to stop this service.
    *If Anet is unable to make good expansions with a number of people they can´t afford, they have to stop it. I don´t know if Anet has a big team, but I know for sure that you get/got more bang for the buck in older/other games in that regard. So subjectively you can say that they already don´t make good and long expansions with such a big crew.
    *25 $ for a skin with of a mount with so many setbacks sounds unreasonable to me. I don´t know how for example Blizzard thinks this flies, but that is a subscription game and I don´t feel guilt for playing it and have no desire to own special pets/mounts anyway.

    To make a long story short, I won´t be guilt triped into buying something I find unreasonable or worthless because somebody else sells it for the same price, we are not talking about medicine or bread. And I can´t understand how people are so bent on making money for a company that can stop their fun on a whim. if you are such a big fan of big time economics you also have to life with the setbacks of said economics.

  • castlemanic.3198castlemanic.3198 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    People assign value to things differently. At any reasonable price point, there will be those that feel the price is too high and those that feel it may be too low. Whether one feels the current price is worth it versus whether the price is justified are two entirely different things.

    Which is entirely why I talked about the price not being justified.

    Whataboutism is disingenuous at best. If you join a debate and provide little to no proof when the other side provides lots of evidence, you can't then declare yourself the winner of that debate.

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 29, 2017

    I’m failing to see how the transactions from the gemstore done with gold doesn’t cost Anet money. Cost in this sense being that they’re not gaining any real world currency from the transaction. The impact of converting from gold-gems does increase the appeal of doing the reverse. However, how much benefit they obtain from it is debatable. Similar to why expansions are not sold on the gem store.

  • "Destiny---- charge for every single patch"
    Wrong! this is untrue

  • @ProverbsofHell.2307 said:

    This was posted by user DragonWhimsy on reddit/guildwars2 and he raised some excellent points that I wanted to share.

    Original post link: https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/7gd33r/mounts_at_2000_gems_actually_are_ok_and_heres_why/

    These mounts are not simple re-colors like the Halloween and most of the License mounts.Those skins were low effort to create and the 2000 gem mounts are high effort with completely new looks, new effects, sounds, and sometimes animations.
    $25 is the industry standard for MMO mounts. Even in games with larger player bases and a required subscription.

    And 700 gems ($8.75) is the standard -- established by ANet -- for outfits.

    The default mount skins are beautiful. ANet didn't skimp on them like they did with the default glider. No one should feel bad riding around on the default mount skins.

    Solid point. I would pay 700 gems for a version of the default skin with 4 dye channels.

    You don't pay a subscription for this game and the store is not P2W.

    Facts I very much applaud.

    If Anet made the mounts 800 gems you know very well you would go to the Silverwastes and farm gold and would never spend a penny on these mounts. That is why if they lowered the price they would get less money even if more people "bought" them. Yes many more times the amount of people would have the mount but many less people would spend money on them.

    When people exchange gold for gems, someone paid cash for the gems. In addition, there is a fee in gems just to use the exchange. Gold ---> gems is still generating revenue, and will as long as enough people want gold and are willing to pay cash for it without endangering their account.

    The mount is NOT nearly the price of the expansion. The expansion was sold very cheaply with the knowledge that some people would pay more for mount skins and carry those of us who didn't want to pay for a $50 expansion. Mount skins aren't a supplement to PoF. PoF exists to sell these mount skins.

    Well, the XPac serves other purposes, but I can see it including mounts as a vehicle for monetization.

    These mount skins are why NCSoft has allowed ANet to continue with it current massive content output for a game that was not generating nearly enough profits to warrant it post-HoT's.

    That's a stretch. ANet is publishing GW2 and has been for some time. As long as they are generating revenue and not going to NCSoft for money, I suspect NCSoft is hands off.

    Now let's look at some alternatives:
    -ANet could get rid of the gold to gem conversions entirely. Then everyone has to pay real money for all gem store items. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

    Eliminating gold --> gems would lower ANet's revenue, not increase it.

    -ANet could put in an optional subscription that would slowly get more and more benefits over time as ANet became more and more dependent on it which would relegate non-subscribers to being second-class citizens. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

    Another bad idea. Mount prices are a sore point for some people. The game was sold with a no-sub model. Introducing an optional sub would cause the game to bleed players, which would shrink the paying population. Another revenue shrinker.

    -ANet could charge money for every patch.
    -ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.
    -ANet could drastically cut content updates and either fire a bunch of people or put them in a mobile game's division.

    All bad for consumers, but at least these "solutions" have a potential to generate more revenue.

    So my question to those of you who really want to buy a peacock raptor skin for $10... which of those solutions appeals to you? Because you have to pick one.

    It certainly sounds that way from what Mr. O'Brien posted on Reddit. Oh, well. Absent other ideas, I'll live with expensive mounts and bundles , and not getting them.

    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -- Santayana

  • castlemanic.3198castlemanic.3198 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    I’m failing to see how the transactions from the gemstore done with gold doesn’t cost Anet money. Cost in this sense being that they’re not gaining any real world currency from the transaction. The impact of converting from gold-gems does increase the appeal of doing the reverse. However, how much benefit they obtain from it is debatable. Similar to why expansions are not sold on the gem store.

    Haven't Arenanet themselves said that players only actually buy the gems players have exchanged to gold?

    I could be wrong but remember something about that, which, if true, means that Arenanet lose no money whatsoever from gold to gem exchange, since every gem being exchanged for gold has been bought by someone's real world money.

    Whataboutism is disingenuous at best. If you join a debate and provide little to no proof when the other side provides lots of evidence, you can't then declare yourself the winner of that debate.

  • Ashen.2907Ashen.2907 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Oglaf.1074 said:
    "-$25 is the industry standard for MMO mounts."

    Two wrongs don't make a right.

    No, but people willing to pay that amount industry wide establishes it as the fair market price...which is right.

  • Zania.8461Zania.8461 Member ✭✭✭

    Bottom line is that I have seen maybe 1 peacock since LS4 release. I am sorry, but I believe that the majority of the population agrees that these are overpriced based on the fact that people aren't buying them. So any arguments brought up about the fact that these are not too expensive are well and good...but people aren't buying them. At some point ANet will need to make a decision of either lowering the price and having higher volume of sales or keep trying to sell small number of extremely expensive mounts.

    On the same note, I don't think that spending $25 per mount for 5 mounts ($125) which were introduced in a $30 expansion is even remotely amusing. For all the "other games" you only use one mount. ANet introduced 5 and made at least 3 of them required in some areas.

  • Ashen.2907Ashen.2907 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Zania.8461 said:
    Bottom line is that I have seen maybe 1 peacock since LS4 release. I am sorry, but I believe that the majority of the population agrees that these are overpriced based on the fact that people aren't buying them. So any arguments brought up about the fact that these are not too expensive are well and good...but people aren't buying them. At some point ANet will need to make a decision of either lowering the price and having higher volume of sales or keep trying to sell small number of extremely expensive mounts.

    On the same note, I don't think that spending $25 per mount for 5 mounts ($125) which were introduced in a $30 expansion is even remotely amusing. For all the "other games" you only use one mount. ANet introduced 5 and made at least 3 of them required in some areas.

    I have not seen Idaho....so it doesnt exist?

  • @Oglaf.1074 said:

    @Ashen.2907 said:

    @Oglaf.1074 said:
    "-$25 is the industry standard for MMO mounts."

    Two wrongs don't make a right.

    No, but people willing to pay that amount industry wide establishes it as the fair market price...which is right.

    Except that isn't true. Have you actually seen anyone using these mounts in-game? I sure as heck haven't. These prices are not meant to be fair to you and me: it is meant to prey on whales.

    Unfortunately I see them a lot, it's not necessarily pretty :)

    Please nerf Paper and buff Rock. Scissors is ok as is. Signed, Rock.

  • They shot themselves in the foot long ago but this is the straw as they say. They are gonna lose plenty of cash and customers due to mountgate and while I absolutely adore this game, they deserve every consequence for their greed.

  • Oglaf.1074Oglaf.1074 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Turial.1293 said:
    They shot themselves in the foot long ago but this is the straw as they say. They are gonna lose plenty of cash and customers due to mountgate and while I absolutely adore this game, they deserve every consequence for their greed.

    They will still make money. As I was saying, these type of prices are not aimed towards players like you and me. They are aimed towards so-called whales. The reason why the y are so overpriced is because they only ever counted on selling a very few of them. That's how freemium works, sadly.

    Please Anet give us a hide Chest Armour-option. Tattoo-clad Norns everywhere beg of you.

  • @Oglaf.1074 said:

    @Ashen.2907 said:

    @Oglaf.1074 said:
    "-$25 is the industry standard for MMO mounts."

    Two wrongs don't make a right.

    No, but people willing to pay that amount industry wide establishes it as the fair market price...which is right.

    Except that isn't true. Have you actually seen anyone using these mounts in-game? I sure as heck haven't. These prices are not meant to be fair to you and me: it is meant to prey on whales.

    I saw multiple players with resplendent skins on day one.

  • Alatar.7364Alatar.7364 Member ✭✭✭✭

    By setting the Mount at 2k will generate Anet less profit than if they set it at 1k, this pretty much eliminates the Entire post, because I would really love to see the One who would Braindead farm Silverwastes for enough Gold for 1k gems.

    ~ I Aear cân ven na mar

  • notebene.3190notebene.3190 Member ✭✭✭✭

    This is a good read too. In broader terms.

    In the event I don't get a chance, thank you all for the company and help when I needed it from time to time.

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Healix.5819 said:

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:
    do you have an example of other games where mounts are $25 (apart from WoW)? I'm honestly curious

    They seem to be $25-$30 in FFXIV for an account unlock or $13 for a character unlock.

    $20-$25 in ESO, $10 for a simple a retexture.

    $25-$30 in WoW.

    I think you have a miss quote, that wasn't me but nottsgman. Was also going to use ESO as sample for mount prices after I checked what they were going with. Which range from 14-32 based on 750 gems conversion but without any options to convert in game coin to crowns.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • Sylvyn.4750Sylvyn.4750 Member ✭✭✭

    @nottsgman.8206 said:

    -$25 is the industry standard for MMO mounts. Even in games with larger player bases and a required subscription.

    do you have an example of other games where mounts are $25 (apart from WoW)? I'm honestly curious

    In Mechwarrior Online, you can buy a Hero mech, probably in the heavy or assault class, for about that much. However, it is not just a reskin, it has a plethora of new weapons, and all Hero mechs offer a 30% bonus in-game currency reward. In MWO, you can't do anything without having a mech though, it is more like having a new character, as each weight class and even each mech in a particular weight class can have different abilities. Even if Anet made these mounts pretty AND offered 30% bonus on gold or magic find, there would still not be the equivalent value for $25 as there is in MWO. Now, having said that, once upon a time, MWO did sell $500 gold-plated mechs...a few people bought them, but they were instant targets whenever they popped up in game, so in the end, they were worthless.

  • Matick.4132Matick.4132 Member ✭✭✭

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:

    @Oglaf.1074 said:

    Here's how NOT TO WITHER stop insulting their player base. Not everyone is a fanboy, most of us are here becasue the game had a good standard of quality and fair prices on the gemstore. As soon as what draws people in ends, the game ends. So straying from the good practices and examples set in the past (even with some glaring exceptions - like most of what happened between HoT announcement and the start of LS3) is what will kill the game.

    Also if this was a subscription model, the amount of content on the expansion would have most people ask for a refund. People tolerate expansions that trickle out of content in 2 weeks because we know we ALSO paid for Living World. In no way did the expansion warrant a 30€ price tag (or 80, if you bought Ultimate - like i did), just like 50€ was way too much for HoT. We can justify this because we know that there's more content coming for that price tag.

    Also, you can see a ton of people saying they'd have bought the mounts for 800-1000 gems. Easily more than double the people that claim they've bought it. So basic maths... 2x 1000 = 2000, and they'd have made as much money (if not more) from selling it a bit cheaper.
    Even with all the crapstorm around the RNG you can't go to LA without seeing 5-10 guys with mounts from the Mount Adoption License. And yet, so far, i've seen less than 5 Warhounds total, not per visit to LA, and still haven't seen a Avialan Raptor. Which tells you exactly how popular those are, which is NOT MUCH.
    So they're actually making LESS money from trying to impose those prices as the standard for mounts, as they would be making if they sold them at what is standard for other similar items in the gemstore.

    Finally, those of you who think that the BattleFront 2 players are your brothers-in-arms over matters like this should know that actually couldn't be further from the truth. They are fighting EA to get what we already have. Cosmetics in their cash shop. It's not the same thing at all.

    No, they're fighting EA for toxic and predatory practices in the micro-transactions.
    The whole micro-transactions model is a money-grab exploitative model, that has no buisness on a full-price game. It's justifiable in a game like GW2 because of Living world content.

    Quick Clarification:
    I'm not saying GW2 is in danger or that it's going anywhere. No matter what GW2 is successful enough to be around for years to come. This is in reference to just how much development resources it will get. Will ANet continue to make it their main focus or will the bulk of their team move on to something new? Mount skin sales is going to be in large part what determines that."

    No, that's an uninformed fanboy-ish tirade of falacious arguments and downright disinformation, which has no benefit for you or the game.

    Now here's someone who didn't fell asleep in economy lessons! ^^
    Thanks for such a well toned comment on that topic.

  • @Healix.5819 said:

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:
    do you have an example of other games where mounts are $25 (apart from WoW)? I'm honestly curious

    They seem to be $25-$30 in FFXIV for an account unlock or $13 for a character unlock.

    $20-$25 in ESO, $10 for a simple a retexture.

    $25-$30 in WoW.

    $5 for a character unlock in PSO2.

  • @ProverbsofHell.2307 said:
    Now let's look at some alternatives:
    -ANet could get rid of the gold to gem conversions entirely. Then everyone has to pay real money for all gem store items. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

    Everyone is already paying real money. The gems exist for conversion because someone else used them to purchase items from the gem store. There will be no gold-to-gem without anybody purchasing the gems with real money.

    -ANet could put in an optional subscription that would slowly get more and more benefits over time as ANet became more and more dependent on it which would relegate non-subscribers to being second-class citizens. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

    GW2 should have been subscription based from the beginning. I am not against this idea. Also, to remove the "second-class citizens" is to remove free-to-play. I am not a fan of "freemium" model, you either subscriptions base or you're free-to-play. Freemium is the reason I don't play the games that offer such model.

    -ANet could charge money for every patch.
    -ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.

    These are very bad ideas and should not be accepted and not valid solutions.

    -ANet could drastically cut content updates and either fire a bunch of people or put them in a mobile game's division.

    I doubt ArenaNet will even consider this option.

    So my question to those of you who really want to buy a peacock raptor skin for $10... which of those solutions appeals to you? Because you have to pick one.

    $10/month subscription. OR $15/month subscription with free 100 gems per month. No free-to-play. That is a valid and reasonable solution.

    However, this is too late for GW2 to change the business model. ArenaNet can very well make a new game, GW3 perhaps, and make it subscription based. I mean, to be honest, I understand that they want to revolutionize the online gaming industry by opting for a buy-to-play model, but GW2 could have been much more if ArenaNet made it subscription based. The current state of the game is anemic that desperately needs a reliable lifeblood to flow in its veins. They can say otherwise, but the depth of the expansion is evidence that they rushed to release the expansion to keep the cash flowing. Path of Fire could have been much more, heck even core GW2 could have been much more if only they've chosen to make it a subscription based. Just my 2 cents.

    Thief F1 must remain an instacast Steal skill. DE will simply apply DE Mark on target on Steal.
    Malice build-up independently from DE Mark. Mark only speed up the build-up, not be the pre-requisite.
    http://sirvincentiii.com ~ In the beginning...there was Tarnished Coast...

  • I think mount skins at 2000 gems are fine. What bothers me is the absence of mount skins that can be obtained by the more traditional methods.

    Like glider skins.

    Like armor skins.

    Like outfits.

    Like weapon skins.

  • Guys, you're replying to the points that the reddit poster made about "alternatives to expensive skins". But the reddit poster wasn't suggesting them like they're attractive alternatives - they're obviously far worse than expensive skins, which was his point.

    You people would cripple this game just so you can have your unicorn ponies cheaper.

  • Ashen.2907Ashen.2907 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Oglaf.1074 said:

    @Ashen.2907 said:

    @Oglaf.1074 said:
    "-$25 is the industry standard for MMO mounts."

    Two wrongs don't make a right.

    No, but people willing to pay that amount industry wide establishes it as the fair market price...which is right.

    Except that isn't true. Have you actually seen anyone using these mounts in-game? I sure as heck haven't. These prices are not meant to be fair to you and me: it is meant to prey on whales.

    Yes I have.

  • IndigoSundown.5419IndigoSundown.5419 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 30, 2017

    @notebene.3190 said:
    This is a good read too. In broader terms.

    Thanks for linking this. It is a good read, and I'm glad someone debunked that video, which concluded games are not expensive to make because publishers' costs went down due to making fewer games.

    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -- Santayana

  • Lilyanna.9361Lilyanna.9361 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 29, 2017

    @nottsgman.8206 said:

    -$25 is the industry standard for MMO mounts. Even in games with larger player bases and a required subscription.

    do you have an example of other games where mounts are $25 (apart from WoW)? I'm honestly curious

    TERA, Wildstar.

    TERA- 40 bucks
    Wildstar- 20 bucks

    Honestly I am also with the subs guy. Kick these cheap people out. Lock them away. Pull down the door. If you don't wanna spend bucks, then you obviously don't wanna play that badly. I swear Free to Players are the literal cancer and the reason why WoW is not ever going to free to play.

  • They can set whatever price they wish but if the price set is higher than what the market will bear then maybe they should cut down expensive extra animations and cut the price.

    Be careful what you ask for
    ANet might give it to you.

    Forum Guides: Images. Text

  • Bunter.3795Bunter.3795 Member ✭✭✭

    I see it come up all the time "somebody paid for these gems" you all seem to not pay attention to achievement points in this game. At every 5,000 AP interval (5k, 10k, etc) you are given 30g and 400 GEMS. Now take those 400 gems for the first 5k achievement points, multiply it by a conservative 1 million users and you get 400,000,000 gems that no one had to purchase. Sure a lot of people spend them in the store but not all do and they can convert them to gold just like a person who has paid for the gems.

    I'm not saying that every person sells their 400 gems, I know I haven't, but everyone is given those gems to use however they feel like and Anet hasn't been paid an extra dime for them.

    Personally I'm fine with whatever price Anet wants to charge for every single item in the gem store. If I like the item and I feel the price is right (to me) I'll buy it. If I don't like the item or I feel it's too expensive, I DON'T BUY IT. All this whining on the forums coupled with the hyperbole and over-dramatization is just ridiculous. In a digital game where Anet knows exactly how many accounts are active and how many purchases are made they know better than anyone here whether the price is "right" or not.

    Sure you can voice your opinion as to whether or not you'll buy it but to accuse Anet of exploitation or predation of it's customer is just pure BS. No one is pointing a gun at your head to purchase these items, no one is given an in game advantage when they do purchase them and you don't. Voice your feedback like some have "2,000 is just too much for me" etc but leave all the rest out of the forums

    If life gives you melons, you're probably dyslexic.

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.