Mounts at 2000 gems actually ARE ok and here's why (xpost from reddit) - Page 4 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

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

124>

Comments

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 1, 2017

    @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Lambent.6375 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:
    No it's not ok and here's why..

    How much time, work and effort went into Path of Fire?
    How many new features did we get?
    How many maps did we get?
    How many new sounds and music tracks did we get?
    How many new elite specs did we get?
    How many new weapon and armor sets did we get?
    How much story content did we get?
    How many new achievements got added?
    How many brand new enemy types got added?
    How much did path of fire cost?

    Now check the mount..
    How much does 2000 gems cost?

    Is that value for money even justifiably comparable?
    No.. I didn't think so.

    The value of the expansion is more than $30, they just sold it cheap on purpose. They're making their money back through the gem store.

    Not with 2k gem skins..

    I've seen a couple of the new raptors but none of the warhound.. they are not selling anywhere near as well as the mount licences did.. and I expect most of those who did buy them didn't buy the full 2000 gems with money.

    You don't know that. You don't have ANY idea how many they are selling. You're like anyone else; no data, all the answers. The problem with you is that you don't recognize that it IS in Anet's best interest to price these so they sell. You also don't understand this business model is a self-regulating system; if the mounts don't sell at 2K gems, Anet WILL fix that. If Anet continue to sell mounts at 2K gems, then obviously their business model is working for them.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @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.

    Nothing is worth paying a mandatory subscription fee for.
    There's a very good reason why most MMO's that use them either die off very quickly or end up being forced to go free2play.. and then die off very slowely.

    This market is over saturated and frankly putting a mandatory sub fee on the guildwars franchise would kill it.. Anet know this and so do most of the fans.
    I guarantee you that if Anet did add a sub fee most of us would stop playing Gw2 in protest.

    Guildwars has always been an anti subscription fee franchise.. and it's mostly that anti sub fee attitude which has attracted this fanbase to it.

    And I say that as someone who has spent far more money on the gemstore overall than I would have if I had been paying a mandatory sub fee for this game since it's release in 2012.
    I'm more than happy to invest more money into a game when it treat's me fairly and doesn't screw me over with terrible business practices like mandatory sub fees.
    When the latter occurs however I completely blacklist the game and refuse to have anything to do with it.

    If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

    And if you cancel your subscription you have a game you've paid for and invested a ton of money in taken away from you and essentially held at ransom until you start paying again..
    That is not ok with me in any way shape or form.

    That's not even true. If I cancel, it means I don't want to play. Nothing is being held for ransom.

    With the buy to play model you never loose access to your game unless you get banned.. this is how it should be.

    The reality is; games without funding die and you lose everything.

    When you buy something it should be yours.. and games that run on the subscription model are absolutely ripping you off when they also charge you upfront for the kitten game and additionally for their expansions as well.

    Supply and demand. If the supply doesn't match your demand, you should not pay. However, if the supply matches my demand, I would pay. The price is relative.

    And if you can't afford to play you have your game taken away from you..
    And if you can afford but lack time then you're wasting money when you're not playing..

    True for some, but not for all. As I said, I can cancel my sub if I know I won't be playing for a while, so it requires some planning and money management. In my case, it was never a waste of money nor anything being taken away which is similar to many players who plays subc-based MMOs.

    Games have survived off initial sales since the dawn of online gaming and before it.. if any game cannot do this today then perhaps the companies responsible for them shouldn't be making games like that in the first place.

    We're talking about scale here. GW1 is not GW2 for instance.

    Besides for games like WoW.. the amount they make from millions of people paying a sub fee doesn't even remotely come close to the investment put back into the game.
    The bulk of that is pure profit which is one of the big reasons MMO's exploded in popularity in the first place.. It's a cash cow primed to be milked and everyone wanted a piece of the pie.
    Sub fees are completely unnecessary.. specially when you have a good game that sells on it's merits and can survive without them.

    True, but what is also true is that with that kind of cash flow, the game is bigger and better.

    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...

  • Sir Vincent III.1286Sir Vincent III.1286 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2, 2017

    @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

    You are welcome to that belief, but it is not accurate. The difference is that in a rent-to-play MMO, paying the rental fee is mandatory to play the game. Were you to stop dropping $20 into gems per month, your access to Gw2 would not end.

    Your belief is inaccurate. ArenaNet is not doing this for charity. You may not be the one paying for your access, but someone is paying so they can stay in business. The monthly fee makes sure that everyone playing the game pay their fair share in supporting the game.

    I pay way more than my fair share supporting this game.. that's the best benefit of running a game without a sub fee and relying on a cash shop to make profit.
    I'm more than happy to pay more when it's my own choice and I have the freedom to decide for myself how much money I want to invest in this game.

    Take away that freedom.. take away my choice to pay what I want and demand I pay a mandatory fee instead with the ultimatum that if I don't I'll have everything taken off me and my access to a game I've paid for completely stripped away and I'd walk away from the game and never touch it again even if it went back to a f2p model.

    That's overly exaggerated. The scale of GW2 is not even close to the scale of MMOs with sub fee. The reason for the sub fee is to give the game depths in terms of game experience and story. More revenue, more development time. There's a lot of criticism how shallow PoF is, well, what do you expect? You get what you paid for. Sure you spent more than others, but your share will not cover for others who never spent. Besides, the revenue is not consistent.

    And i'm not alone in feeling that way.. many Guildwars fans do.. because the main reason many of us got into this franchise was because it was anti sub fee.

    I understand that. All I'm saying is GW2 could have been a lot bigger and better with a consistent revenue from sub fee.

    That's mostly speculation.. there's no guarantee Gw2 would be a better game with sub fees.. chances are it wouldn't be that much different.. just more expensive for most people with the added factor that if they couldn't pay every month they would be refused access to the game.
    I'll concede that there would be potential for a better game with a sub but considering the core fanbase of the franchise was sold on Guildwars because of it's anti sub fee stance then it's a pretty huge gamble that deciding to add one would instantly lose Gw2 a huge chunk of it's fanbase.

    As I've said, it's too late for GW2 to change their business model now. I am just contemplating that GW2 could have been a better game with sub fee. I agree that they may lose a chunk of their fan base and they decided to keep them. I totally respect that. This is the reason why I don't believe when other players accuse ArenaNet of being "greedy" or "predatory".

    It's all relative speculation though.. sure what I spend may not add up to what others didn't but what I did spend can easily overtake what a lot of people didn't.
    This is the whole whale concept in effect.. (Not saying I am one)
    One person who spends a lot more than several who don't combined.. makes that one person more valuable than the several others.
    However with a sub fee that One person decides to leave the game making the mandatory sub for the several others necessary to cover that one player who left.. then factor in that a couple of the several also decide to leave since they don't believe the game is worth paying for and you end up overall with a far bigger loss than when you had a free game.

    The sub-fee will not be implemented due to the loss of the one player doing the heavy lifting, that is equivalent to GW2 suddenly changing their business model -- that is not what I'm saying at all. I have said that it's too late for GW2 to do that.

    There's no way for us to accurately know this considering we don't get to see the data but considering this franchise was built around a no sub fee model... not to mention one of the biggest concerns fans had before Gw2 came out was whether it had a sub fee.. it's a pretty safe bet to assume that adding one would turn a great number of Guildwars fans away from the franchise.. overall causing a bigger loss in profits than one gained through a sub fee.

    GW2 at its current state does not justify a sub fee. However, if GW2 was ever a sub based game, I'm sure with the talents that were in ArenaNet, they could have made a game worth paying a subscription for. They could given the Orders more depth, each faction more depth, and our chosen character traits more depth. Examples; Expanding what being a Human Noble really means, the connection of GW1 and GW2 when you link your account (e.g. Ancestry lorewise), application of what I've learned in the College of Dynamics, going back to Pale Tree and sharing my new found knowledge to new Sylvaris, a Dawnborn Sylvari will have a different answer than from a Nightborn Sylvari, etc. With depth and more content, GW2 will be worth paying sub for.

    EDIT for clarity

    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...

  • Draco.9480Draco.9480 Member ✭✭✭

    2k gems for a single mount skin is pigness and mass greediness. glider skins are around 500-700 gems so why can't mounts be 500 gems as well? why quad the price? I'd actually buy mount skins for 500 gems but they're either 4 times the prices or random kitten so i lost interest in buying mount skins. I bought the halloween pack mount for 1600 gems but i got like for 5 mounts just so i can enjoy the full color of shadow abyss dye which I like with the glowing eyes. but now zis 1 single mount skin is 2000 or 500 for random is i just don't want to fund anet anymore. zis is really overpriced.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Draco.9480 said:
    2k gems for a single mount skin is pigness and mass greediness. glider skins are around 500-700 gems so why can't mounts be 500 gems as well?

    This question is exactly why you can't say 2K gems for a single mount skin is pigness and mass greediness.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • I'm more interested into wardrobe sets. 700 gems is a nice price and 400 gems mount adoption skins are fine as well. I'll support this game like if it was subscription and more, depends on what they're offering. I'll skip these exclusive expensive mounts skins, but meanwhile I'll keep supporting.

  • Despond.2174Despond.2174 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 2, 2017

    Here is my take. I love GW2 for it's fair cash shop system. Nearly every Asian and other MMO markets that label as "free to play" or "B2P" have direct p2w options and removal of massive time-gating. It's more p2w especially when your gear model is not linear like GW2 and people have to keep upgrading or else they fall behind. People will say "But you can earn that in game" but if you have to spend 12 hours a day for 3 months to get the next armor tier over someone who just buys it, or have someone bypass currency time-gates and rewards then you are "softly forced" to pay if you want to even remotely be up among the competition.

    I am well aware you are not TRULY forced to do anything, but if you love certain games you have to go this route to keep up with people who do, that's the reality. Yes GW2 you can buy gold, but it's linear power system helps keep that in check, and paying for visual enhancements is smart and fair. GW2 does have solid gold earning options as well, a lot of MMOs deliberately cut back on gold making capabilities so people feel more pressured to use real money. I find time vs gold earned in GW2 is quite reasonable to at least get a few nice things every so often.

    As for 2k for the mounts, well I do think that is priced too high and I feel more people would buy them @ 1k, but it is only a VISUAL, if the mounts had more movement speed, more endurance etc then of course I would have a serious issue. I personally would have bought a few mounts @ 1k if I could choose, but under this system I am not going to gamble or pay 2k. Maybe having a handful of people fork out 10s of thousands of gems to gamble or get specific mounts works out more money than a larger population paying a lower flat fee, I don't know and I am sure they have smart people with all the statistics working this out.

    On a sidenote: F2P is often misleading with other MMOs, they won't use a "sub" because they want to draw that initial wave of players with the bright neon "FREE!", then they trickle in their p2w cash shop system soon after. They will also DELIBERATELY during development hold back on content/gameplay so they can trickle it in micro-transaction form - this is sadly common in other game genres now where you never get a full game any more. I wish companies were held accountable for this, but if the player culture doesn't object then I guess you can't blame big developers continuing with these methods.

    Sub MMOs actually work out cheaper for your average dedicated player. Over 5 years I've paid more per month--slightly--than I have with other sub MMOs, but I am fine with that and this was my choice. I want AANET to make GW3, I want GW to continue as a franchise, if people don't use real money then the game ceases to exist, but I also don't want the cash shop getting out of control, even non-p2w still need to be reasonably priced and a mount being the same as an expansion IMO is not balanced. If you told me everything I've earned with game gold, CC and all unlocked options would come standard if I paid let's say $15 per month I would have taken that option straight away.

  • Anela.3867Anela.3867 Member ✭✭✭

    I was against the cost of the mount skins at first but I finally broke down and bought the "peacock" skin last night and it is beautiful! The attention to detail is amazing and the pictures I've seen don't do it justice. To me, it was well worth the price after all. I take back my complaint.

    I love this game and I want to do all I can to support it.

  • ReaverKane.7598ReaverKane.7598 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @DarcShriek.5829 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    If I am to spend $20 a month in GW2. I see no difference in a monthly subscription. Besides, it's hardly mandatory since I can cancel my subscription anytime.

    You are welcome to that belief, but it is not accurate. The difference is that in a rent-to-play MMO, paying the rental fee is mandatory to play the game. Were you to stop dropping $20 into gems per month, your access to Gw2 would not end.

    Your belief is inaccurate. ArenaNet is not doing this for charity. You may not be the one paying for your access, but someone is paying so they can stay in business. The monthly fee makes sure that everyone playing the game pay their fair share in supporting the game.

    So, what is a person's fair share? Who decides that? What has Anet decided a person's fair share is?

    The price of purchase. Aside from that it's extra.

  • @SkyShroud.2865 said:
    LOL. What? Who set the so-called industry standard? Self proclamation should have a limit. Btw, did the poster heard of demand and supply law?

    ArenaNet can create an infinite supply of a single skin and they can create an infinite number of skins with more artists and modelers. The problem they'd have is oversaturation of the mount skin market -- when you create too many of something why would I want to collect them all? Where's the exclusivity feeling?

    I think ArenaNet is getting a profit on their mount skins and that's what's important. To break even, ArenaNet would need to sell enough mounts to cover the cost of their development (the time of the artist, modeler, and whoever else is involved). One they pass that breakeven point they're in the green and making a profit on that effort. The question is how much effort goes into making a single skin? What is that bar they need to meet? I think they obviously met it with the Forged Hound because they released another skin soon after with the same price point. If they weren't profitable then I imagine they'd re-evaluate their sales and tweak something -- longer period before skin releases, bundle them, sales, or lower the price.

    Anyways, I read your "supply and demand" statement and I wanted to post.

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2, 2017

    What they need to make is create new mounts models and sell them in the TP, as in mounts from HoT and core animals/mobs, then they can add more skins.

    Gw2 needs to be more modular :X so they can sell more stuff on the TP.

  • Leo G.4501Leo G.4501 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Anela.3867 said:
    I was against the cost of the mount skins at first but I finally broke down and bought the "peacock" skin last night and it is beautiful! The attention to detail is amazing and the pictures I've seen don't do it justice. To me, it was well worth the price after all. I take back my complaint.

    I love this game and I want to do all I can to support it.

    I'm glad you liked it. One of my speculations for future mount skins was a feathered raptor and when I saw the new skin, I wanted it... But when I saw it move, I just didn't like that it lost its tail for tail feathers. Had it still had a raptor tail with feathers on it, I would have bought it too.

    Basically, I think you did the right thing. If you liked it, and you had the gems/cash for it, then go for it!

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Lambent.6375 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:
    No it's not ok and here's why..

    How much time, work and effort went into Path of Fire?
    How many new features did we get?
    How many maps did we get?
    How many new sounds and music tracks did we get?
    How many new elite specs did we get?
    How many new weapon and armor sets did we get?
    How much story content did we get?
    How many new achievements got added?
    How many brand new enemy types got added?
    How much did path of fire cost?

    Now check the mount..
    How much does 2000 gems cost?

    Is that value for money even justifiably comparable?
    No.. I didn't think so.

    The value of the expansion is more than $30, they just sold it cheap on purpose. They're making their money back through the gem store.

    Not with 2k gem skins..

    I've seen a couple of the new raptors but none of the warhound.. they are not selling anywhere near as well as the mount licences did.. and I expect most of those who did buy them didn't buy the full 2000 gems with money.

    You don't know that. You don't have ANY idea how many they are selling. You're like anyone else; no data, all the answers. The problem with you is that you don't recognize that it IS in Anet's best interest to price these so they sell. You also don't understand this business model is a self-regulating system; if the mounts don't sell at 2K gems, Anet WILL fix that. If Anet continue to sell mounts at 2K gems, then obviously their business model is working for them.

    I can take a wild guess based on how many I can see in the game and compare them.
    I've seen about 6 of the new Raptors.. and now 1 Warhound.. compared to the literal thousands of various skins from the licences that I've seen.. I can make the assumption that 2k skins are not selling anywhere near the same as the licence skins have.. anyone can log into the game at any time and make that obvious assumption.

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:
    Games have survived off initial sales since the dawn of online gaming and before it.. if any game cannot do this today then perhaps the companies responsible for them shouldn't be making games like that in the first place.

    We're talking about scale here. GW1 is not GW2 for instance.

    True it isn't.. but there are other factors involve there too.. for example with Gw1 being a more primitive in terms of mechanics the game was vastly larger than Gw2 containing far more maps, skills, regions etc..
    In all honesty I much prefer Gw1 over Gw2 in many areas.. one of which was that they released full stand alone games rather than expansions.
    It was awesome but clearly that kind of thing could never exist in Gw2.. but if you give me the choice between gimping Gw2 as it is now.. mechanically, graphically etc in favor of a less demanding development process allowing for bigger expansions and more content etc then I'd take the latter in a heartbeat.

    Besides for games like WoW.. the amount they make from millions of people paying a sub fee doesn't even remotely come close to the investment put back into the game.
    The bulk of that is pure profit which is one of the big reasons MMO's exploded in popularity in the first place.. It's a cash cow primed to be milked and everyone wanted a piece of the pie.
    Sub fees are completely unnecessary.. specially when you have a good game that sells on it's merits and can survive without them.

    True, but what is also true is that with that kind of cash flow, the game is bigger and better.

    There are many WoW players who quit the game because of the newer updates and content etc.. and still those who complain about it..
    It has the potential to be for sure.. but better is really down to the individual opinion..
    I'd personally say many MMO's are better now having given up the subfee.. but that's just because of my bias because now I will play them.. but then there are other MMO's such as TESO which many regard as trash games regardless of whether they charge a sub or not..
    Not all MMO's are good games nor have the potential to be.. so a subfee does nothing for them even though they usually try to charge one at the initial launch.

  • Psientist.6437Psientist.6437 Member ✭✭✭

    I don't respond to the allure of conspicuous consumption, don't have an opinion on whether 2000 gems is too expensive and do not intend this post as criticism of anyone who does. I am posting this, hoping to explain why MO is most likely right about individually high priced items.

    The gem exchange can reduce revenue and releasing many low priced individual items is riskier than releasing one high priced item. Whether the gem exchange is reducing revenue depends on the price elasticity of the price of gold. The relationship between price point and units sold (demand quantity) doesn't predict that reducing price always increases revenue; instead, the relationship predicts that there is an optimal price point where raising or lowering the price reduces revenue. Is the price of gold at that optimal price point or is there positive elasticity (increasing the price increases revenue)? While not definitive evidence, the sustained increase in the price of gold following the release of PoF (when the population was highest in recent history) suggests players (in aggregate) are willing to pay an increased price for gold. Whenever the studio releases popular new items in the gem shop the price of gold drops; gold goes on sale. Releasing several low price items is more likely to decrease the price of gold than one high price item. Imo, the studio does not need to offer sales on gold to drive demand for gold, that many of the players who purchase gold only when it goes on sale would still spend as much on gold without the sale. Do not read this and change your gold buying habits. Players should do what is in their best interest.

    MMOs in general and GW2 specifically, cater to and select for conspicuous consumption. Where price elasticity trends negative for most goods and services (reducing the price increase demand) the price elasticity for flashy luxury goods is positive (increasing the price increases demand). With an item like a flashy as kitten mount, conspicuous consumption will push the optimal price point higher than expected.

    On average, a flashy as kitten mount does not take much longer to make than a simple as kitten mount. (We need kitten mounts.) For the studio, that creates a situation where flashy products provide a much more reliable return on investment.

    Imo, it is the combination of these three things that pushed the price of the mount to 2000 gems.

    all primes work and not tearing down has value
    ready purrlayer @ any parsed feels enhance the value of something that is already worth everything
    what other chordal approach but penultimate singing along with other quantum cuddle clocks

  • Ashantara.8731Ashantara.8731 Member ✭✭✭✭

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

    Two wrongs don't make a right.

    This. Furthermore, in most other MMOs those are actual mounts, not simply reskins.

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

    @Belorn.2659 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    The gem exchange works with there being a finite number of gems within it. Gems leave it when players buy them with gold and gems enter it when players purchase gold with them. Gems purchased with money are newly created. Gems spent on gem store items are removed.

    That part is correct. Gems on the trading post arrive there when a player buys them and then trade them in for gold, with a 15% tax cut.

    When more gems are being bought with gold, the exchange rate increases. It costs more gold to purchase gems as well as more gold being received by exchanging gems. That’s a given since there’s usually a ~15% difference between them.

    Since the game launched, the exchange rates have been steadily increasing. This can only happen if more gems are being bought with gold than exchanged for gold.

    And that part is false. Anet has several times stated that there is a finite number of gems and all gems are first bought by other players. Every gem being sold on the TP has first been bought by a player. The exchange rate reflect a algorithm, where in theory the price would be infinitively large if the store had only a single gem left.

    In practice, the algorithm seems more complex. Remember that anet takes ~15% tax cut on both when a person sell gems to the store, and when a player buy gems for gold from the store. Those 15% tax on both side generates a lot of missing gems and gold that anet could use as they wish to establish a fair price, while at the same time maintain a maximum 1:1 ratio between bought gems and sold gems on the TP.

    So Anet is experiencing a loss in potential gem sales if players were to farm for gold and exchange it for gold rather than purchase with money. If items in the gem store, such as mount skins, were made to be cheaper, farming for gold would be more appealing. So the OP was correct in their statement. The only unknown is how much of a loss it would be and that’s something we don’t have the data to determine.

    So no, a there is no loss in gem sales from a player buying gems for gold. In contrast, gold->gems is anets take on gold sellers, beating them in their own game. The 250g griffon showed everyone how a strong desire for gold will have a very strong impact on the gem<->gold price, cutting it down to almost 66% of the price before the expansion. Because of the 15% tax, this event generated anet a lot of gem sales that translate to quite a bit of revenue.

    Lets run the numbers: 250g is 1400 gems right now. Let say a player buys those with money to get the gold. Anet take as their cut of 210 gems by acting as a middle man and holding those gems until a buyer wants them, giving the seller his 250g instantly from a gold reserve. When a buyer want to buy those remaining 1190 gems, they have to pay 310G, where 250g goes to back to the bank reserve and 60g goes to anet as tax. In total player A got 250g and paid 1400 gems. Player B paid 310G and got 1190 gems. Anet got for free in this transaction 210 gems and 60 gold.

    Or to put it in other numbers. Every time a player buy gems to buy a griffon, Anet gets $2.5 and remove 60 gold from the economy. For free. I can easily make the bet that this part of micro-transaction is the single highest revenue source in the store. All Anet need to do is to encourage this trade by having items in the store that people want to buy and items in the game that people need gold to buy (such as legendaries/precursors on the TP). The economy will do the rest, and all Anet need to do is to act middle man and provide the market place. Just like the real world, this is where "the real money" is.

    How is what I said false? I never said that the supply of gems was infinite. Anet seeded the gem supply at launch and since then all new gems that enter it was due to players converting gems to gold. I stated this several times in the thread so I do not understand why you’re claiming I did not know this. The exchange rate changes when there is an imbalance in one side. Looking at the trends, it due to more players exchanging gold for gems.

    There’s only one 15% tax which is the difference between the exchange rates. That is all. Like the TP, this ensures currencies leave the system.

    There is a loss if players buy gems with gold. I stated this several times as well in this thread and in the very post you quoted. If Anet released a mount skin for a price that was low enough that I considered to farm the gold for instead of buying with money, they lost out on that sale. All gems have a real world value associated with them. If more players are buying gems with gold than exchanging them for gold, that difference is how much they’re losing.

    Your math ignore the exchange rate increasing since launch. You’d only be correct if the rate remained flat.

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

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    So Anet is experiencing a loss in potential gem sales if players were to farm for gold and exchange it for gold rather than purchase with money. If items in the gem store, such as mount skins, were made to be cheaper, farming for gold would be more appealing. So the OP was correct in their statement. The only unknown is how much of a loss it would be and that’s something we don’t have the data to determine.

    I assume you meant "exchange it for gems" in the first sentence.

    The OP's statement pretty much ignores the fact that people buy gems and put them into the exchange. ANet collects revenue for those gems. While there is no way for us to determine just how much money might be spent if there was no exchange, there is also no way for us to determine how much money is currently being spent to put gems into the currency exchange which would not be spent at all if there was no exchange.

    Three more things to chew over:

    1) people inclined to frugality tend to shy away from bigger-ticket items whether they can afford them or not, whether via gold or cash; people who balk at spending $25 on a pixel item might think nothing of spending $40 as long as its in increments of $5 to $10 at a time. Businesses have been using sales to take advantage of that tendency for a long time;
    2) there's a surcharge on both gold and gems; that means that for every store item bought with gems obtained via gold, ANet collected more cash than they would have if the item buyer spent cash for those gems;
    3) there is another explanation for the move towards bigger-ticket items; the GW2 store is based on the F2P monetization model, which relies on a large number of free or minimal spending players and a smaller number of bigger-ticket purchasers; since the intent behind the GW2 store is to stick to optional transactions, the P2W motivations for bigger expenditures is absent; also, style items more and more need to generate revenue to replace revenue lost due to both population decline and the reduction in need for utility items like bag/bank slots as long-time players max these things; before bigger-ticket bundles started to appear, there were not a lot of bigger-ticket style options; now we're seeing $25 mount skins, and 3K gem packages; bigger-ticket style items also provide the exclusivity big spenders tend to like.

    Believe what you like. I'm inclined to believe ANet makes more money due to the exchange rather than less.

    Your surcharge comment is wrong otherwise Anet would have benefited from selling the expansions in the gem store.

  • kurfu.5623kurfu.5623 Member ✭✭✭

    I will not pay $25 for a **single ** re-color skin with some little do-dads (feathers, armor plate, etc...) tacked on.

    Yes, other games sell mounts for $25, but they are usually a completely new skeleton and new animations.

    This is my signature. It is not very exciting.

  • Leo G.4501Leo G.4501 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @kurfu.5623 said:
    I will not pay $25 for a **single ** re-color skin with some little do-dads (feathers, armor plate, etc...) tacked on.

    Yes, other games sell mounts for $25, but they are usually a completely new skeleton and new animations.

    Or just recolors of said new skeleton/new animation mount.

  • IndigoSundown.5419IndigoSundown.5419 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    So Anet is experiencing a loss in potential gem sales if players were to farm for gold and exchange it for gold rather than purchase with money. If items in the gem store, such as mount skins, were made to be cheaper, farming for gold would be more appealing. So the OP was correct in their statement. The only unknown is how much of a loss it would be and that’s something we don’t have the data to determine.

    I assume you meant "exchange it for gems" in the first sentence.

    The OP's statement pretty much ignores the fact that people buy gems and put them into the exchange. ANet collects revenue for those gems. While there is no way for us to determine just how much money might be spent if there was no exchange, there is also no way for us to determine how much money is currently being spent to put gems into the currency exchange which would not be spent at all if there was no exchange.

    Three more things to chew over:

    1) people inclined to frugality tend to shy away from bigger-ticket items whether they can afford them or not, whether via gold or cash; people who balk at spending $25 on a pixel item might think nothing of spending $40 as long as its in increments of $5 to $10 at a time. Businesses have been using sales to take advantage of that tendency for a long time;
    2) there's a surcharge on both gold and gems; that means that for every store item bought with gems obtained via gold, ANet collected more cash than they would have if the item buyer spent cash for those gems;
    3) there is another explanation for the move towards bigger-ticket items; the GW2 store is based on the F2P monetization model, which relies on a large number of free or minimal spending players and a smaller number of bigger-ticket purchasers; since the intent behind the GW2 store is to stick to optional transactions, the P2W motivations for bigger expenditures is absent; also, style items more and more need to generate revenue to replace revenue lost due to both population decline and the reduction in need for utility items like bag/bank slots as long-time players max these things; before bigger-ticket bundles started to appear, there were not a lot of bigger-ticket style options; now we're seeing $25 mount skins, and 3K gem packages; bigger-ticket style items also provide the exclusivity big spenders tend to like.

    Believe what you like. I'm inclined to believe ANet makes more money due to the exchange rather than less.

    Your surcharge comment is wrong otherwise Anet would have benefited from selling the expansions in the gem store.

    Boy, you make a lot of assumptions. There are only so many whales, and many games compete for their money. The currency exchange may be quite profitable with those who don't want to spend money changing gold for gems to get optional items. That doesn't mean it would remain profitable if the whale cash needed to cover the XPac for everyone. If you're going to make definitive statements, it would help if you learned to ask why things are as they are before you post.

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

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 7, 2017

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    So Anet is experiencing a loss in potential gem sales if players were to farm for gold and exchange it for gold rather than purchase with money. If items in the gem store, such as mount skins, were made to be cheaper, farming for gold would be more appealing. So the OP was correct in their statement. The only unknown is how much of a loss it would be and that’s something we don’t have the data to determine.

    I assume you meant "exchange it for gems" in the first sentence.

    The OP's statement pretty much ignores the fact that people buy gems and put them into the exchange. ANet collects revenue for those gems. While there is no way for us to determine just how much money might be spent if there was no exchange, there is also no way for us to determine how much money is currently being spent to put gems into the currency exchange which would not be spent at all if there was no exchange.

    Three more things to chew over:

    1) people inclined to frugality tend to shy away from bigger-ticket items whether they can afford them or not, whether via gold or cash; people who balk at spending $25 on a pixel item might think nothing of spending $40 as long as its in increments of $5 to $10 at a time. Businesses have been using sales to take advantage of that tendency for a long time;
    2) there's a surcharge on both gold and gems; that means that for every store item bought with gems obtained via gold, ANet collected more cash than they would have if the item buyer spent cash for those gems;
    3) there is another explanation for the move towards bigger-ticket items; the GW2 store is based on the F2P monetization model, which relies on a large number of free or minimal spending players and a smaller number of bigger-ticket purchasers; since the intent behind the GW2 store is to stick to optional transactions, the P2W motivations for bigger expenditures is absent; also, style items more and more need to generate revenue to replace revenue lost due to both population decline and the reduction in need for utility items like bag/bank slots as long-time players max these things; before bigger-ticket bundles started to appear, there were not a lot of bigger-ticket style options; now we're seeing $25 mount skins, and 3K gem packages; bigger-ticket style items also provide the exclusivity big spenders tend to like.

    Believe what you like. I'm inclined to believe ANet makes more money due to the exchange rather than less.

    Your surcharge comment is wrong otherwise Anet would have benefited from selling the expansions in the gem store.

    Boy, you make a lot of assumptions. There are only so many whales, and many games compete for their money. The currency exchange may be quite profitable with those who don't want to spend money changing gold for gems to get optional items. That doesn't mean it would remain profitable if the whale cash needed to cover the XPac for everyone. If you're going to make definitive statements, it would help if you learned to ask why things are as they are before you post.

    Umm... did you mean to quote someone else as your post doesn't make much sense in response to mine?

    Edit:

    Rather than cause a another bump to the thread, here's a post backing up that Anet does not make money through gold->gem exchanges.

    Gibson.4036: "Of course they make money off of it. If you buy gems with cash, they’ve made money. If you buy the gems with gold so you can upgrade, then someone else paid for those gems with cash, so ANet made money there, too."

    Gaile: "Gibson — please keep in mind that players earn gold in the game. We do not make money from gold acquired in that manner, it’s coming to them through normal gameplay solely with the purchase of the original game. I just want to be sure that I point out that gold does not necessarily indicate a purchase (for real money) of any kind, not by the player nor by anyone else."

    https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:k0DVOMiomrcJ:https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/game/hot/Questions-about-Pricing-and-Payment-merged/page/5+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    Only the cached page is available. I also vaguely remember Gaile stating that they would not make money off the expansion (it was HoT at the time) if it could be bought for gems. Still trying to find that one.

    Edit2: I guess this was the post, Can't access the thread through cache to get the context behind it. Just the reddit thread referencing it.

    "Since gold can be acquired simply through playing the game, using in-game currency is not a form of payment in this context."

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/2yq3vn/a_clarification_from_gaile_gray_about_purchasing/

  • @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

    @Teratus.2859 said:
    Games have survived off initial sales since the dawn of online gaming and before it.. if any game cannot do this today then perhaps the companies responsible for them shouldn't be making games like that in the first place.

    We're talking about scale here. GW1 is not GW2 for instance.

    True it isn't.. but there are other factors involve there too.. for example with Gw1 being a more primitive in terms of mechanics the game was vastly larger than Gw2 containing far more maps, skills, regions etc..

    Not larger, but more depth. GW2 is way larger than GW1 but GW1 has more depth when it comes to story and lore. Keep in mind, there is no swimming and jumping in GW1. A hill that you can jump down in seconds in GW2 will take minutes to reach the same spot in GW1 since you have to walk around, which gives you a false perception of size. Speed boost, waypoint, mounts, swimming, jumping, and flying make a large map seem smaller.

    In all honesty I much prefer Gw1 over Gw2 in many areas.. one of which was that they released full stand alone games rather than expansions.

    Each game has its pros and cons but I will not say I prefer GW1. GW1 has a better story and that's about it. Life in GW1 is hard and loot and gold drop takes hours to make. On top of that, there is no auction house in GW1. You'll have to find a player who sells the item you want at a reasonable price, which never exists.

    The standalone was nice but not feasible. They tried to rush the release of those expansions that Factions and Nightfall were littered with bugs.

    It was awesome but clearly that kind of thing could never exist in Gw2.. but if you give me the choice between gimping Gw2 as it is now.. mechanically, graphically etc in favor of a less demanding development process allowing for bigger expansions and more content etc then I'd take the latter in a heartbeat.

    I don't think you realize what you're asking. That means, no waypoints, no mounts, no jumping, no swimming, no auction house, 8 skills slot instead of 10, no stealth, and many others. Yeah, I don't think so.

    Besides for games like WoW.. the amount they make from millions of people paying a sub fee doesn't even remotely come close to the investment put back into the game.
    The bulk of that is pure profit which is one of the big reasons MMO's exploded in popularity in the first place.. It's a cash cow primed to be milked and everyone wanted a piece of the pie.
    Sub fees are completely unnecessary.. specially when you have a good game that sells on it's merits and can survive without them.

    True, but what is also true is that with that kind of cash flow, the game is bigger and better.

    There are many WoW players who quit the game because of the newer updates and content etc.. and still those who complain about it..

    WoW players quit because there are other games to play. Most of the people who complain still plays the game. I mean, what's the point of complaining if you no longer play the game.

    It has the potential to be for sure.. but better is really down to the individual opinion..

    Hmm, not really. I have not found anyone who dislikes the keychain QoL added to the wallet. A simple thing like that makes the game better and we need more things like that.

    I'd personally say many MMO's are better now having given up the subfee.. but that's just because of my bias because now I will play them.. but then there are other MMO's such as TESO which many regard as trash games regardless of whether they charge a sub or not...
    Not all MMO's are good games nor have the potential to be.. so a subfee does nothing for them even though they usually try to charge one at the initial launch.

    Exactly, it would depend on the game.

    TESO is not a trash game, rather the business model is, thus the reason I no longer play it. If they made it the way Skyrim is, that would have been a game worth the sub. Then there's Rift, a game was never worth the sub fee as well as Wildstar.

    However, GW2 has the potential and it would have been able to compete with other sub MMO. GW2 has a story as rich as FFXIV but unfortunately not being explored due to development constraints a.k.a. cash flow.

    By the way, I just paid my $20 GW2 sub fee by buying gems to buy the adoption license. Four new skins per month.

    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...

  • IndigoSundown.5419IndigoSundown.5419 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ayrilana.1396 said that @Gaile Gray.6029 said:

    I just want to be sure that I point out that gold does not necessarily indicate a purchase (for real money) of any kind, not by the player nor by anyone else."

    OK, here's some analysis. For the sake of discussion, I'm going to assume that "...gold does not necessarily indicate a purchase (for real money)" really means "...exchanging gold for gems does not necessarily..."

    Notice the "necessarily." This is equivocation, not in the sense of prevarication, but in the sense of refusing to commit. She could as easily have posted in a different context, "doesn't necessarily indicate there was no purchase." and it would amount to the same thing. You can interpret this to mean that ANet loses money on the gold-for-gems exchange if you like, but this is a failure of critical thinking. Had this post read, "ANet loses money due to the gold-for-gems exchange." you'd have a slam-dunk. It doesn't say that, though. All that statement does is cast doubt. This could just be ANet deciding that players don't need to know the ins and outs of exactly how the system works.

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

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 7, 2017

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said that @Gaile Gray.6029 said:

    I just want to be sure that I point out that gold does not necessarily indicate a purchase (for real money) of any kind, not by the player nor by anyone else."

    OK, here's some analysis. For the sake of discussion, I'm going to assume that "...gold does not necessarily indicate a purchase (for real money)" really means "...exchanging gold for gems does not necessarily..."

    Notice the "necessarily." This is equivocation, not in the sense of prevarication, but in the sense of refusing to commit. She could as easily have posted in a different context, "doesn't necessarily indicate there was no purchase." and it would amount to the same thing. You can interpret this to mean that ANet loses money on the gold-for-gems exchange if you like, but this is a failure of critical thinking. Had this post read, "ANet loses money due to the gold-for-gems exchange." you'd have a slam-dunk. It doesn't say that, though. All that statement does is cast doubt. This could just be ANet deciding that players don't need to know the ins and outs of exactly how the system works.

    Prove that I’m wrong in this thread by all means. Prove that Anet makes money with people purchasing gems with gold and has been over the long run of the game.

  • Lemondrop.5216Lemondrop.5216 Member ✭✭
    edited December 7, 2017

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

    Two wrongs don't make a right

    Something is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. Yes they are beautiful, but $25-30 is a lot of money for a animated picture.
    If the price was lower, i might buy two.

  • IndigoSundown.5419IndigoSundown.5419 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said that @Gaile Gray.6029 said:

    I just want to be sure that I point out that gold does not necessarily indicate a purchase (for real money) of any kind, not by the player nor by anyone else."

    OK, here's some analysis. For the sake of discussion, I'm going to assume that "...gold does not necessarily indicate a purchase (for real money)" really means "...exchanging gold for gems does not necessarily..."

    Notice the "necessarily." This is equivocation, not in the sense of prevarication, but in the sense of refusing to commit. She could as easily have posted in a different context, "doesn't necessarily indicate there was no purchase." and it would amount to the same thing. You can interpret this to mean that ANet loses money on the gold-for-gems exchange if you like, but this is a failure of critical thinking. Had this post read, "ANet loses money due to the gold-for-gems exchange." you'd have a slam-dunk. It doesn't say that, though. All that statement does is cast doubt. This could just be ANet deciding that players don't need to know the ins and outs of exactly how the system works.

    Prove that I’m wrong in this thread by all means. Prove that Anet makes money with people purchasing gems with gold and has been over the long run of the game.

    You've misstated the issue in the above. ANet does not make money from people purchasing gems with gold, they make it from people purchasing gems to exchange for gold. Hopefully, you are not disputing that.

    You made a statement that came across as, "ANet is losing more money than they are gaining due to the exchange." That's what I thought we were discussing. As far as that goes, I don't have to prove that you are wrong. I've stated my position as a belief. I have room in my opinion for you to be right, and me wrong, but I would want something more than you've offered to accept that. You, on the other hand, seem to be making a definitive statement. That means you would have to prove you're right. Now, if what you're stating is your belief, and just sounded more like a fact than you intended, then we might not have much more to discuss.

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

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

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said that @Gaile Gray.6029 said:

    I just want to be sure that I point out that gold does not necessarily indicate a purchase (for real money) of any kind, not by the player nor by anyone else."

    OK, here's some analysis. For the sake of discussion, I'm going to assume that "...gold does not necessarily indicate a purchase (for real money)" really means "...exchanging gold for gems does not necessarily..."

    Notice the "necessarily." This is equivocation, not in the sense of prevarication, but in the sense of refusing to commit. She could as easily have posted in a different context, "doesn't necessarily indicate there was no purchase." and it would amount to the same thing. You can interpret this to mean that ANet loses money on the gold-for-gems exchange if you like, but this is a failure of critical thinking. Had this post read, "ANet loses money due to the gold-for-gems exchange." you'd have a slam-dunk. It doesn't say that, though. All that statement does is cast doubt. This could just be ANet deciding that players don't need to know the ins and outs of exactly how the system works.

    Prove that I’m wrong in this thread by all means. Prove that Anet makes money with people purchasing gems with gold and has been over the long run of the game.

    You've misstated the issue in the above. ANet does not make money from people purchasing gems with gold, they make it from people purchasing gems to exchange for gold. Hopefully, you are not disputing that.

    You made a statement that came across as, "ANet is losing more money than they are gaining due to the exchange." That's what I thought we were discussing. As far as that goes, I don't have to prove that you are wrong. I've stated my position as a belief. I have room in my opinion for you to be right, and me wrong, but I would want something more than you've offered to accept that. You, on the other hand, seem to be making a definitive statement. That means you would have to prove you're right. Now, if what you're stating is your belief, and just sounded more like a fact than you intended, then we might not have much more to discuss.

    In previous posts I gave by reasonings for backing that statement. It’s based on how the system works and the data we have available.

  • Ashen.2907Ashen.2907 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 7, 2017

    Some people use real world money to buy gems specifically to trade for gold earned in game by other players. Those gem purchases made specifically and solely for the sake of exchanging for gold would not have been made if there was no option to exchange for gold so the ability to exchange gold for gems earns Anet some (we do not know how much) money.

    This is not opinion, it is a fact.

  • ReaverKane.7598ReaverKane.7598 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Belorn.2659 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    The gem exchange works with there being a finite number of gems within it. Gems leave it when players buy them with gold and gems enter it when players purchase gold with them. Gems purchased with money are newly created. Gems spent on gem store items are removed.

    That part is correct. Gems on the trading post arrive there when a player buys them and then trade them in for gold, with a 15% tax cut.

    When more gems are being bought with gold, the exchange rate increases. It costs more gold to purchase gems as well as more gold being received by exchanging gems. That’s a given since there’s usually a ~15% difference between them.

    Since the game launched, the exchange rates have been steadily increasing. This can only happen if more gems are being bought with gold than exchanged for gold.

    And that part is false. Anet has several times stated that there is a finite number of gems and all gems are first bought by other players. Every gem being sold on the TP has first been bought by a player. The exchange rate reflect a algorithm, where in theory the price would be infinitively large if the store had only a single gem left.

    In practice, the algorithm seems more complex. Remember that anet takes ~15% tax cut on both when a person sell gems to the store, and when a player buy gems for gold from the store. Those 15% tax on both side generates a lot of missing gems and gold that anet could use as they wish to establish a fair price, while at the same time maintain a maximum 1:1 ratio between bought gems and sold gems on the TP.

    So Anet is experiencing a loss in potential gem sales if players were to farm for gold and exchange it for gold rather than purchase with money. If items in the gem store, such as mount skins, were made to be cheaper, farming for gold would be more appealing. So the OP was correct in their statement. The only unknown is how much of a loss it would be and that’s something we don’t have the data to determine.

    So no, a there is no loss in gem sales from a player buying gems for gold. In contrast, gold->gems is anets take on gold sellers, beating them in their own game. The 250g griffon showed everyone how a strong desire for gold will have a very strong impact on the gem<->gold price, cutting it down to almost 66% of the price before the expansion. Because of the 15% tax, this event generated anet a lot of gem sales that translate to quite a bit of revenue.

    Lets run the numbers: 250g is 1400 gems right now. Let say a player buys those with money to get the gold. Anet take as their cut of 210 gems by acting as a middle man and holding those gems until a buyer wants them, giving the seller his 250g instantly from a gold reserve. When a buyer want to buy those remaining 1190 gems, they have to pay 310G, where 250g goes to back to the bank reserve and 60g goes to anet as tax. In total player A got 250g and paid 1400 gems. Player B paid 310G and got 1190 gems. Anet got for free in this transaction 210 gems and 60 gold.

    Or to put it in other numbers. Every time a player buy gems to buy a griffon, Anet gets $2.5 and remove 60 gold from the economy. For free. I can easily make the bet that this part of micro-transaction is the single highest revenue source in the store. All Anet need to do is to encourage this trade by having items in the store that people want to buy and items in the game that people need gold to buy (such as legendaries/precursors on the TP). The economy will do the rest, and all Anet need to do is to act middle man and provide the market place. Just like the real world, this is where "the real money" is.

    How is what I said false? I never said that the supply of gems was infinite. Anet seeded the gem supply at launch and since then all new gems that enter it was due to players converting gems to gold. I stated this several times in the thread so I do not understand why you’re claiming I did not know this. The exchange rate changes when there is an imbalance in one side. Looking at the trends, it due to more players exchanging gold for gems.

    There’s only one 15% tax which is the difference between the exchange rates. That is all. Like the TP, this ensures currencies leave the system.

    There is a loss if players buy gems with gold. I stated this several times as well in this thread and in the very post you quoted. If Anet released a mount skin for a price that was low enough that I considered to farm the gold for instead of buying with money, they lost out on that sale. All gems have a real world value associated with them. If more players are buying gems with gold than exchanging them for gold, that difference is how much they’re losing.

    Your math ignore the exchange rate increasing since launch. You’d only be correct if the rate remained flat.

    A loss where?
    The exchange rate MEANS NOTHING, it's just padding for Arena Net.
    There's no cost to gold for Arena Net, nor any earnign, the only loss that exists is for the person SELLING the gems or the guy BUYING the gems.
    For Arena net, 800 gems is 10€ whether the other person sells them for 100 gold or 10. Nothing changes!

  • -ANet could charge money for every patch.

    I am okay with paying appropriately for new content releases. Not patches that fix stuff or add piecemeal stuff to the game, but stuff like LW episodes. 5 euro seems a decent price for a LW episode to me, considering how comparatively small they are to the game/xpacs.

    Paying for content is not a problem.

    But then ANet cannot scream far and wide that OMG WE DONT CHARGE FOR UPDATES WE ARE SO AWESOME COME PLAY OUR GAME. And what gains them more in the broad view, I wonder?

    So it's a give/take for both sides. I am okay with that. Are you, ANet?

  • Healix.5819Healix.5819 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    Rather than cause a another bump to the thread, here's a post backing up that Anet does not make money through gold->gem exchanges.

    Gibson.4036: "Of course they make money off of it. If you buy gems with cash, they’ve made money. If you buy the gems with gold so you can upgrade, then someone else paid for those gems with cash, so ANet made money there, too."

    Gaile: "Gibson — please keep in mind that players earn gold in the game. We do not make money from gold acquired in that manner, it’s coming to them through normal gameplay solely with the purchase of the original game. I just want to be sure that I point out that gold does not necessarily indicate a purchase (for real money) of any kind, not by the player nor by anyone else."

    You can find a cache of the old forums, that topic specifically, here.

    In short, Gaile wasn't considering the big picture, that someone first has to buy gems and sell them for gold in order for others to buy them for gold. John Smith came in and clarified that.

  • Belorn.2659Belorn.2659 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 7, 2017

    @ReaverKane.7598 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:

    @Belorn.2659 said:

    @Ayrilana.1396 said:
    The gem exchange works with there being a finite number of gems within it. Gems leave it when players buy them with gold and gems enter it when players purchase gold with them. Gems purchased with money are newly created. Gems spent on gem store items are removed.

    That part is correct. Gems on the trading post arrive there when a player buys them and then trade them in for gold, with a 15% tax cut.

    When more gems are being bought with gold, the exchange rate increases. It costs more gold to purchase gems as well as more gold being received by exchanging gems. That’s a given since there’s usually a ~15% difference between them.

    Since the game launched, the exchange rates have been steadily increasing. This can only happen if more gems are being bought with gold than exchanged for gold.

    And that part is false. Anet has several times stated that there is a finite number of gems and all gems are first bought by other players. Every gem being sold on the TP has first been bought by a player. The exchange rate reflect a algorithm, where in theory the price would be infinitively large if the store had only a single gem left.

    In practice, the algorithm seems more complex. Remember that anet takes ~15% tax cut on both when a person sell gems to the store, and when a player buy gems for gold from the store. Those 15% tax on both side generates a lot of missing gems and gold that anet could use as they wish to establish a fair price, while at the same time maintain a maximum 1:1 ratio between bought gems and sold gems on the TP.

    So Anet is experiencing a loss in potential gem sales if players were to farm for gold and exchange it for gold rather than purchase with money. If items in the gem store, such as mount skins, were made to be cheaper, farming for gold would be more appealing. So the OP was correct in their statement. The only unknown is how much of a loss it would be and that’s something we don’t have the data to determine.

    So no, a there is no loss in gem sales from a player buying gems for gold. In contrast, gold->gems is anets take on gold sellers, beating them in their own game. The 250g griffon showed everyone how a strong desire for gold will have a very strong impact on the gem<->gold price, cutting it down to almost 66% of the price before the expansion. Because of the 15% tax, this event generated anet a lot of gem sales that translate to quite a bit of revenue.

    Lets run the numbers: 250g is 1400 gems right now. Let say a player buys those with money to get the gold. Anet take as their cut of 210 gems by acting as a middle man and holding those gems until a buyer wants them, giving the seller his 250g instantly from a gold reserve. When a buyer want to buy those remaining 1190 gems, they have to pay 310G, where 250g goes to back to the bank reserve and 60g goes to anet as tax. In total player A got 250g and paid 1400 gems. Player B paid 310G and got 1190 gems. Anet got for free in this transaction 210 gems and 60 gold.

    Or to put it in other numbers. Every time a player buy gems to buy a griffon, Anet gets $2.5 and remove 60 gold from the economy. For free. I can easily make the bet that this part of micro-transaction is the single highest revenue source in the store. All Anet need to do is to encourage this trade by having items in the store that people want to buy and items in the game that people need gold to buy (such as legendaries/precursors on the TP). The economy will do the rest, and all Anet need to do is to act middle man and provide the market place. Just like the real world, this is where "the real money" is.

    How is what I said false? I never said that the supply of gems was infinite. Anet seeded the gem supply at launch and since then all new gems that enter it was due to players converting gems to gold. I stated this several times in the thread so I do not understand why you’re claiming I did not know this. The exchange rate changes when there is an imbalance in one side. Looking at the trends, it due to more players exchanging gold for gems.

    There’s only one 15% tax which is the difference between the exchange rates. That is all. Like the TP, this ensures currencies leave the system.

    There is a loss if players buy gems with gold. I stated this several times as well in this thread and in the very post you quoted. If Anet released a mount skin for a price that was low enough that I considered to farm the gold for instead of buying with money, they lost out on that sale. All gems have a real world value associated with them. If more players are buying gems with gold than exchanging them for gold, that difference is how much they’re losing.

    Your math ignore the exchange rate increasing since launch. You’d only be correct if the rate remained flat.

    A loss where?
    The exchange rate MEANS NOTHING, it's just padding for Arena Net.
    There's no cost to gold for Arena Net, nor any earnign, the only loss that exists is for the person SELLING the gems or the guy BUYING the gems.
    For Arena net, 800 gems is 10€ whether the other person sells them for 100 gold or 10. Nothing changes!

    Technically, the tax that anet takes could either be on the gems or the gold, depending on how internal details of the exchange.

    Assume someone buy 800 gems and sells them on the exchange. Anet takes around 15% tax (estimated for the price point between sell and buy), which either mean they destroy 15% of the gold output which the seller would get, or 15% of the 800 gems. Similarly the buyer of gems get equal 15% tax, where Anet either destroy 15% of the gold input or 15% of the gem output.

    The statements of John Smith don't actually specify what the case is. it could be that any gems added to the store can also be bought, while its gold that get destroyed in every transaction. This would make gems a 1:1 from buyer to seller, while gold would loose about 30% of the value going from one players hand to an other. It could also be the opposite, where gold is 1:1 when entering and leaving the exchange, but 30% of the gems are lost between seller and buyer. Or it could be any mix between.

    Personally I suspect that the tax do destroy some of the gems. Let assume player A want to $10 worth of gems, and player B want 150 gold. In old times this would mean that player A would be a illegal gold seller and there was no transaction fees involved. If both players tried today to insert the same numbers to the exchange at the same time, both player would end up short with about 15% of the intended goal. Player A would end up with $8.5 , and player B with 127 gold. In order for player A to end with $10, player B need to actually buy $12 worth of gems, and similarly player B need to raise around 180 gold. Anet, for holding the exchange and banning any other method gains $2 in the gold seller scenario. In additional, player B has caused $10 in revenue which player A might not have bought themselves, creating a win-win-win-win scenario. Anet get $2 dollar and a sale of $10, the gold seller can do their trade legit, and the gold buyer have a trusted market to buy gold for money.

    John Smith is an economist, and the gold seller market in gw1 was untapped. It would make sense that such a person would integrate this in gw2 to be a profit center for the company.

©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.