Jump to content
  • Sign Up

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


Lonecap.4105

Recommended Posts

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ProverbsofHell.2307 said:-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.

I think there is a minor misunderstanding here. Converting gold to gems does not lose Anet money. Those gems that people are converting for were originally purchased with cash by someone. They aren't just "magically" there. The initial pool of gems at the launch of the game was generated this way, yes, but those gems are long since gone.

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

Two wrongs don't make a right.

While I understand you're thought process here, there is a reason it is an industry standard. And it's not simply 'greed' or 'arbitrary number choice.' If the majority of MMO players concurred that $25 was too much for a mount skin and acted upon that, the industry standard would be lower. Such standards have been changed with enough outcry. So, I'm not saying to stop, not by any means. However, I am pointing out that you're going to need to be much louder and much further reaching than just GW2 to make this change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would never buy a skin for 10 or 20 or 25 Euro. One skin isn't worth that. I could easily afford it, but it's simply not something I am willing to spend in comparison to what I get. If the company running GW2 depends on an income that requires skins to be that expensive, they should find other ways to get this. This is also not "microtransaction", this is huge "macrotransaction". It's a lie to us consumers. If skins were 100-200 gems, I would probably buy half of the shop, but one single skin for 800, 1000, 2000? Not buying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I try to dismiss some of these statements, because I really don't agree on them.And since they're not completely yours, pls don't take offence. :)

@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/_

"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.

Not true.You can make a living without exploiting your players/customers.Find better ways to monetise something, ways without Lootbox BS and high priced stuff that – or alternatives (there are no alternative skins, yet!) – you can't even get trough fractals/raids or hard challenges.

Let us put the situation into context:

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

Cool.Well, actually it's not tbh. It's marketing BS.Just because others are awfully greedy GW doesn't need to jump the bandwagon aswell.Numbers of ppl being forced or who gave in on something, doesn't make a good comparison, now does it?

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.

The gold to gem conversation rate is crappy for someone who can't grind everyday, or who has time but would like to enjoy PLAYING the game instead of grind the heck outta his/her time after calling it a day at work!

-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.

Should I clap for every publisher who isn't that awfully greedy?The GW games are premium titles, payed as full releases, no need to charge extra if you already payed.

-ANet could charge money for every patch.

Err... no. A patch is a patch, not an add-on!I'm fine paying premium for an add-on, wich we actually DO right now.

-ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.

Awesome, let's bury the game as an alternative because we ran outta imagination completely.

-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.

There are more than these standard arguments that are chewed and spit out over and over again.Please use your full imagination and don't copy and paste crappy marketing dogmas, that other publisher or industries came up with.

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.

As said right above: adapt or die means saying good bye to your fluffy imagination.

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.

Disagree. It's comparable indeed.If a huge part of the game is customisation, customisation becomes a vital part in the progress of your char. That's how it always was in RPGs since the beginning of time.Heck, even since the beginning of mankind we always wanted to be individual and cultures who forced their ppl into a solitude form always died in the long run. Some like to dress casual, some like the fancy pink leotard... that's who we are. Exploiting this is the real issue.

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."

If that's the case: How unimaginative, really.Again, find better ways. I said it in another post somewhere: for example Hollywood is able to produce multimillion dollar productions and they don't need to cash you midway in a film. There's merch, there's funding, there's product placement, licensing ... etc.

Speaking of merch. I've always seen the gem-store as something like that. Where I could get something fancy for a couple of bucks, to support the development of the game. The focus lies on 'a couple of bucks'. Not 25-30 bucks for a pixel-shader! A tenner is absolutely fine and enough. Make it a fiver and I buy 10 or so. But 25€ and I buy exactly: NONE!So just relying on the whale-theory is marketing BS as well.

I do hope GW2 goes on. I hope it'll one day look as fancy as some of the awesome games out nowadays, maybe have a GW3, 4, 5 ...I'm a fan. Of course I'd like to see my favourite game go on, blossom and rise. So I'm willing to support it and as an artist myself I really DO KNOW what that means – and I don't want it for free either. I just don't want to see GW becoming a crappy, exploitative game like so many others are nowadays!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$20.00 for a mount skin is not exploitive. It adds no new function to the game. You are not required to buy it. It's only available if you want it. Would you consider a $1000.00 purse to be exploitive? I know people that only buy purses that cost that much. Yeah sure it's just a skin that no one needs. Because of that, I most likely won't get one. But to say it's exploitive is wrong. A ticket to a movie can run as much as $15.00 Then add a drink and popcorn, your in for $30 per person. To claim that $20 is exploitive is just hyperbole designed to denigrate Anet.

GW2 is great value. It is a mistake to think otherwise. No one is forcing you to buy things from the gemstore. Personally I haven't spent any money on gems since the game began. I'm glad that there are people that do. If anything I wonder how GW2 can be attractive to actual whales because they seem to have only a few items added each month. It seems it would be difficult to spend more than $250 a month. $250 per month isn't even close to whale territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Not only that but he's dismissing the fact that the "industry standard" is that the "premium" 25$ mounts are a fraction of the total available ones.I mean wow has like 5 times more mounts from random drops only (then there's quest rewards, class and racial mounts, etc) than it has in the Store.

@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

Final Faintasy XIV also has 25$ mounts, but again, it's a tiny fraction of the available mounts.The "Industry standard" argument is disingenuous, because the "industry standard" is to provide a ton of alternatives via in-game rewards, with only a few "premium" alternatives.

@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/_

"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.

I counter with Outfits, gliders, halloween mounts.

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

-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.

They skimped on the dye channels to channel people that want costumization towards the gem store, just like they did with gliders, but now with more greed.

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

WoW's subscription can be bought with in-game gold. The game's cost is akin to a AAA game, and they managed fine without having stuff costing 2000gems for a skin so far.

-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.

As with all of the above, fallacious argument. This game's (and most other MMORPGs) End-game is about looks. You win by looking good. All other rewards are cosmetic as well, Legendaries are mostly cosmetic, with a bit of functionality (which they limit - see Sigils- because it's meant to be mostly cosmetic).

-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.

Those gems were paid for by people buying gold with gems. So no net loss there, in fact as there's a HUGE deferential between the price of gems for gold and the price of gold for gems, i'd argue that Arena Net can put up a profit.

-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.

So, we have to literally pay for Arena Net's mistakes? That's your argument? They put out a shitty rushed expansion that pushed a lot of the comunity out of the game, and can't hold on to players, so the solution is to push more players with toxic gemstore practices? Sound logic!

-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.Well, MO said NCSoft had no weight on the decisions or the pricing. So yeah, defeated your argument.NC Soft green lit GW2's expansion because it's the only IP that does well in the west.

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.

Someone ALREADY has to pay real money for the gems.

-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.

Yeah, and EVERYONE would stop playing in that day. Differential treatment isn't good PR; and the main selling point of this vs FFXIV and WoW is the no-subscription model. Also, look, the "Games are to expensive to make" argument is BS at it's best.

-ANet could charge money for every patch.They already do.

-ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.And lose everyone.

-ANet could drastically cut content updates and either fire a bunch of people or put them in a mobile game's division.They don't make Mobile games? You're confusing Arena Net with NCSoft. You know how many IPs NCSoft has?

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.No we don't.

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...