Mike O'Briens's new response to high priced Mount skins

I just saw this on Reddit so reposting, am surprised it hasn't turned up here . I have a lot of thoughts about this but am interested in what the general consensus is now on the forum. A couple of things I will say right now:

1. so what exactly do the expansions 'pay for' in terms of development if its never referred to as an income stream, which it is?2 why arnt they considering subs if they are as truly reliant on transactions as they claim, especially when their current position deliberately stops catering to the majority of their player base - who arnt whales. Or charge more for expansions?
2. doesn't a 'micro transaction' become a 'MACRO transaction' when its 75% of the cost of the expansion?

Hi,

As I wrote in my previous response, it’s been a wonderful challenge to support all Living World and Live content development for a game of this size, for five years and counting, purely through the sale of optional microtransactions. We laid out our guiding principles for GW2 microtransactions in March 2012 and we've held true to them ever since. My motivation is to continue to stay true to those principles while also continuing to fund Live content development. I recently apologized for our missteps with the Mount Adoption License. Still, mount skins are purely cosmetic, thus in many ways an ideal embodiment of our goal to support the game with optional microtransactions.

Most of us have two relationships with the GW2 gem store. One relationship is that of a customer: we purchase things when we want them for ourselves and agree with how they’re bundled and priced. Another relationship is that of an interested party: we know that ArenaNet funds Live development through the sale of gems for cash, and we enjoy playing new content like today’s release, so we hope that the gem store does well enough to keep supporting content development. We might say, “I wouldn’t buy that!”, but if enough people buy it that it supports ongoing Live development, we’re still happy.

Mount skins are style items, and style items have some unique challenges. They’re subject to individual taste, so except for the very flashiest items, individual style items will have limited sales. Also, GW2 isn’t setup to support an enjoyable experience of browsing through a large catalog of style items, so players tend not to do that. What our data shows is that higher-priced flashy individual items can work, and lower-average-price-per-item bundles can work, but lower-priced individual items generally don’t generate meaningful revenue to support the game. And the whole point of these items is to support the game.

GW2 is a content-rich online world with no monthly fee, so it’s a great overall value, with microtransactions doing the heavy lifting of funding continued development of the game. It shouldn’t also be our goal to have the lowest-priced microtransactions. In that case, the only logical outcome would be that we could afford to make less content than other developers, and I think that’s not what any of us are looking for. I love our current pace of content development and I hope we can support it for a long time to come.

We’re all in this together. It’s obvious in your posts that you’re thoughtful and motivated to see the game do well. You balance between loving the game and not always agreeing with how gem store items are bundled or priced. That’s fair. We have a commerce team that lives that dilemma every day. We’re all doing our best for the long-term health of the game.

Thank you all for your passion, and again, thank you for your continued support of Live development.

~ MO

Seems like a reasonable approach, I have seen so much worse business models than this...I just don't get what all the kerfuffle is about

@Greyraven.4258 said:Seems like a reasonable approach, I have seen so much worse business models than this...I just don't get what all the kerfuffle is about

The pricing, obviously. 2000 Gems is like 30+ USD - for a single skin.

Consider the pricing for weapon/armour skins and outfits previously and this is a gigantic increase in price because... reasons?

Hi,Hi...

As I wrote in my previous response, it’s been a wonderful challenge to support all Living World and Live content development for a game of this size, for five years and counting, purely through the sale of optional microtransactions.This is one thing I do admire at least.

We laid out our guiding principles for GW2 microtransactions in March 2012 and we've held true to them ever since. My motivation is to continue to stay true to those principles while also continuing to fund Live content development.Heard this during the "apology" of the rng skins.

I recently apologized for our missteps with the Mount Adoption License. Still, mount skins are purely cosmetic, thus in many ways an ideal embodiment of our goal to support the game with optional microtransactions.Once again show you don't really get why the backlash happen though...

Most of us have two relationships with the GW2 gem store. One relationship is that of a customer: we purchase things when we want them for ourselves and agree with how they’re bundled and priced. Another relationship is that of an interested party: we know that ArenaNet funds Live development through the sale of gems for cash, and we enjoy playing new content like today’s release, so we hope that the gem store does well enough to keep supporting content development. We might say, “I wouldn’t buy that!”, but if enough people buy it that it supports ongoing Live development, we’re still happy.Not going to put words in your mout... um... in your fingers...? But this sounds like "As long as whales pay for it, it's perfectly fine."

Mount skins are style items, and style items have some unique challenges. They’re subject to individual taste, so except for the very flashiest items, individual style items will have limited sales.Some of us hate flashy skritt which is why for the rng one people didn't like that factor. I wanted 1 or 2 normal/simple ones, but at the gamble of getting something that melt my eyes out.Also this once again sounds like, "We knew a lot of the ones we put in the adoption was horrible and would never sell, but we made them anyway and made a gambling set up so you can work to get the ones you want unless you were lucky."This does not sound right.

Also, GW2 isn’t setup to support an enjoyable experience of browsing through a large catalog of style items, so players tend not to do that. What our data shows is that higher-priced flashy individual items can work, and lower-average-price-per-item bundles can work, but lower-priced individual items generally don’t generate meaningful revenue to support the game. And the whole point of these items is to support the game.So, "Those that want to blind others is the only ones we care most for as the bland plain individuals DO have some nice shiny coins... but eh..."

GW2 is a content-rich online world with no monthly fee, so it’s a great overall value, with microtransactions doing the heavy lifting of funding continued development of the game.I do agree with that for the most part, but I know many would complain about "content" for certain reasons. There's a lot to do in GW2.

It shouldn’t also be our goal to have the lowest-priced microtransactions. In that case, the only logical outcome would be that we could afford to make less content than other developers, and I think that’s not what any of us are looking for. I love our current pace of content development and I hope we can support it for a long time to come.The last few months I have barely seen any "lowest-priced microtransactions". One being 2000 for halloween, another 9600 for the rng, another 3000 for the Elon one, and then the 2000 Mecha Ram and ugly Chicken Peacock.

We’re all in this together. It’s obvious in your posts that you’re thoughtful and motivated to see the game do well. You balance between loving the game and not always agreeing with how gem store items are bundled or priced. That’s fair. We have a commerce team that lives that dilemma every day. We’re all doing our best for the long-term health of the game.Heard this before.

Thank you all for your passion, and again, thank you for your continued support of Live development.And back to square one like how the "apology" ended for the RNG skins.

Nothing to see here.

@"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

Hi,Hi...

As I wrote in my previous response, it’s been a wonderful challenge to support all Living World and Live content development for a game of this size, for five years and counting, purely through the sale of optional microtransactions.This is one thing I do admire at least.

We laid out our guiding principles for GW2 microtransactions in March 2012 and we've held true to them ever since. My motivation is to continue to stay true to those principles while also continuing to fund Live content development.Heard this during the "apology" of the rng skins.

I recently apologized for our missteps with the Mount Adoption License. Still, mount skins are purely cosmetic, thus in many ways an ideal embodiment of our goal to support the game with optional microtransactions.Once again show you don't really get why the backlash happen though...

Most of us have two relationships with the GW2 gem store. One relationship is that of a customer: we purchase things when we want them for ourselves and agree with how they’re bundled and priced. Another relationship is that of an interested party: we know that ArenaNet funds Live development through the sale of gems for cash, and we enjoy playing new content like today’s release, so we hope that the gem store does well enough to keep supporting content development. We might say, “I wouldn’t buy that!”, but if enough people buy it that it supports ongoing Live development, we’re still happy.Not going to put words in your mout... um... in your fingers...? But this sounds like "As long as whales pay for it, it's perfectly fine."

Mount skins are style items, and style items have some unique challenges. They’re subject to individual taste, so except for the very flashiest items, individual style items will have limited sales.Some of us hate flashy skritt which is why for the rng one people didn't like that factor. I wanted 1 or 2 normal/simple ones, but at the gamble of getting something that melt my eyes out.Also this once again sounds like, "We knew a lot of the ones we put in the adoption was horrible and would never sell, but we made them anyway and made a gambling set up so you can work to get the ones you want unless you were lucky."This does not sound right.

GW2 is a content-rich online world with no monthly fee, so it’s a great overall value, with microtransactions doing the heavy lifting of funding continued development of the game.I do agree with that for the most part, but I know many would complain about "content" for certain reasons. There's a lot to do in GW2.

It shouldn’t also be our goal to have the lowest-priced microtransactions. In that case, the only logical outcome would be that we could afford to make less content than other developers, and I think that’s not what any of us are looking for. I love our current pace of content development and I hope we can support it for a long time to come.The last few months I have barely seen any "lowest-priced microtransactions". One being 2000 for halloween, another 9600 for the rng, another 3000 for the Elon one, and then the 2000 Mecha Ram and ugly Chicken Peacock.

We’re all in this together. It’s obvious in your posts that you’re thoughtful and motivated to see the game do well. You balance between loving the game and not always agreeing with how gem store items are bundled or priced. That’s fair. We have a commerce team that lives that dilemma every day. We’re all doing our best for the long-term health of the game.Heard this before.

Thank you all for your passion, and again, thank you for your continued support of Live development.And back to square one like how the "apology" ended for the RNG skins.

I know you don't pay attention to the gem store so let's break this down. Right now a lot of people are blinded by mounts. But if you search just a wee bit more...

Forge gloves> 400 gemsForge Helm> 400 gemsRam Backpack > 300 gemsOutfit > 700-800 gems

This is all recent items mind you. People just seem to hyperfocus on mounts without realizing the other gem store items for some reason.

This can go on and on. It is true, people do not pay attention to the cheaper end of things on the store. They don't. They are not paying attention to any of that, even when they are on the front page.

Higher numbers generate a response. Be it good or bad, and make us pull away or spend. If data is showing this and the psychology shows it just by an everyday occurrence why are you being huffy and rude?

You response, your reactions, your wallet made these choices. The community really needs to wake up and look at themselves. Devs are just observers, when in reality we make the decisions. In a both positive and negative light. It seems like no one wants to come to terms with this. It's like watching a rat in a maze and game devs are scientists (not to degrade anyone) YOU are giving them the data.

So you want cheaper, yet pretty things? Give them something different to go off of so they won't 'assume' of what you want. But to be fair, people are very easy to read through actions and words so I do not blame them for pulling legit numbers on people's behavioral patterns and reactions to their prices.

FYI- Being sarcastic or rude to Anet only proves their point further.

Did MO only post his comment on Reddit? If so why doesn't he also post it on the GW2 forums?

I am sure Arenanet will price skins at the amount they think will generate the most income for them. So if people want Arenanet to lower the price of mounts, the best way is to vote with our wallets, and not buy the expensive mounts. But at the end of the day, if someone wants to spend 2,000 gems on a mount skin, then that is their prerogative.

You could see it as a longterm goal for simply gold to gems.

I guess this is the way they are trying to get the most out of the gemstore as population is dwindling. This automatically means each single individual needs to pay more. With PoF being sold for less in total, I guess that we will see even higher gemprices than usual.

It's a tough position though, because if thats the reality of it, then the game will lose income and maybe even players merely through too high prices in the gemstore. Which can only be countered with even higher prices which does that even more so.

I really hope that this isn't the case because that seems to me like a nosedive tactic into oblivion over a longer period of time. And I don't feel like spending any more money on the gemstore just because such ridiculous prices for items on there exist. (Not that I spend much money to begin with outside ultimate editions)

I would rather see more benefits for those who DO spend real money to support the game than higher gemstore prices tbh. If you still support the game through monetary means, I dont see why that cant be rewarded more than currently.

Seems completely reasonable to me.

You guys need to understand that they need to make money to keep this game alive. I'd rather have RNG skins than to see this game shut down due to lack of revenue. If you want to increase the cost, they can increase the cost. All of this stuff is cosmetic, so it has no effect on game-play. There shouldn't have been a "backlash" in the first place and he shouldn't have apologized either.

Maybe they should slack down on the voiced dialogue.If they actually made the UI good, they could have a lot of it just as text instead. In the end it would cost much less than hiring 3 voice actors for every lines.

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@Greyraven.4258 said:Seems like a reasonable approach, I have seen so much worse business models than this...I just don't get what all the kerfuffle is about

Please get your math right, 2,000 gems is $25.00. Always has been since the game launched.

To the OP, let me make it simple for you to understand. The sale of expansions fund the development of the next expansion. Micro transactions fund the Live and Living World development. Those are two separate parts of GW2, which is why the expansion sales don't support the Live and Living World update, those are constantly being produced, where as the Expansions take roughly 2 years to develop. Does that make more sense now?

I'm wondering why exactly I paid $30 for the expansion, then? What was it for? Beer and pretzels?

@GreyWolf.8670 said:I'm wondering why exactly I paid $30 for the expansion, then? What was it for? Beer and pretzels?

For guild con- oh nvm

I mean dungeo- sry my bad

PvP upda- jk

WvW chang - almost, getting there

.. glorified living world content, I guess?

@witcher.3197 said:

@GreyWolf.8670 said:I'm wondering why exactly I paid $30 for the expansion, then? What was it for? Beer and pretzels?

Yeah, I'm not sure. :/ I guess it was for rai... oh, no, don't want those, either.

For salaries of the entire company of staff and all the work that goes into the expansion(s)?

Also, I think it's clear here that based on data, they found that this works. So for all the people not complaining about the price or skins, or maybe they are but still are purchasing it, it's a model that is proven to work for them. So that's that! Low price selectable individual items, don't prove to work, so we won't really get that often. Unless we can somehow rally the entire community to make micro purchases on all the little small items to fund them

You paid 30 dollars for the expansion content; which is 20 dollars less than HoT.This helps fund the companies endeavors into the next expansion you'll likely complain about.

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@Greyraven.4258 said:Seems like a reasonable approach, I have seen so much worse business models than this...I just don't get what all the kerfuffle is about

Its $25, not $30 + And its a 100% optional, cosmetic item. Having it will not, in any way shape or fashion, make your character better in the game.

@Lilyanna.9361 said:

@"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

Hi,Hi...

As I wrote in my previous response, it’s been a wonderful challenge to support all Living World and Live content development for a game of this size, for five years and counting, purely through the sale of optional microtransactions.This is one thing I do admire at least.

We laid out our guiding principles for GW2 microtransactions in March 2012 and we've held true to them ever since. My motivation is to continue to stay true to those principles while also continuing to fund Live content development.Heard this during the "apology" of the rng skins.

I recently apologized for our missteps with the Mount Adoption License. Still, mount skins are purely cosmetic, thus in many ways an ideal embodiment of our goal to support the game with optional microtransactions.Once again show you don't really get why the backlash happen though...

Most of us have two relationships with the GW2 gem store. One relationship is that of a customer: we purchase things when we want them for ourselves and agree with how they’re bundled and priced. Another relationship is that of an interested party: we know that ArenaNet funds Live development through the sale of gems for cash, and we enjoy playing new content like today’s release, so we hope that the gem store does well enough to keep supporting content development. We might say, “I wouldn’t buy that!”, but if enough people buy it that it supports ongoing Live development, we’re still happy.Not going to put words in your mout... um... in your fingers...? But this sounds like "As long as whales pay for it, it's perfectly fine."

Mount skins are style items, and style items have some unique challenges. They’re subject to individual taste, so except for the very flashiest items, individual style items will have limited sales.Some of us hate flashy skritt which is why for the rng one people didn't like that factor. I wanted 1 or 2 normal/simple ones, but at the gamble of getting something that melt my eyes out.Also this once again sounds like, "We knew a lot of the ones we put in the adoption was horrible and would never sell, but we made them anyway and made a gambling set up so you can work to get the ones you want unless you were lucky."This does not sound right.

GW2 is a content-rich online world with no monthly fee, so it’s a great overall value, with microtransactions doing the heavy lifting of funding continued development of the game.I do agree with that for the most part, but I know many would complain about "content" for certain reasons. There's a lot to do in GW2.

It shouldn’t also be our goal to have the lowest-priced microtransactions. In that case, the only logical outcome would be that we could afford to make less content than other developers, and I think that’s not what any of us are looking for. I love our current pace of content development and I hope we can support it for a long time to come.The last few months I have barely seen any "lowest-priced microtransactions". One being 2000 for halloween, another 9600 for the rng, another 3000 for the Elon one, and then the 2000 Mecha Ram and ugly Chicken Peacock.

We’re all in this together. It’s obvious in your posts that you’re thoughtful and motivated to see the game do well. You balance between loving the game and not always agreeing with how gem store items are bundled or priced. That’s fair. We have a commerce team that lives that dilemma every day. We’re all doing our best for the long-term health of the game.Heard this before.

Thank you all for your passion, and again, thank you for your continued support of Live development.And back to square one like how the "apology" ended for the RNG skins.

I wasn't being rude or sarcastic. Not sure where that came out at all.Also, while I haven't been around for it... many have already stated from the forged "pieces" and the other one... the ones that had candles on the shoulders...People that was around when Arenanet used to make full armour skins stated that those incomplete 1 to 3 piece armour sets are the same price as the full ones.That already sounds bad.

@GreyWolf.8670 said:I'm wondering why exactly I paid $30 for the expansion, then? What was it for? Beer and pretzels?

You don't know what you're paying for? Now, whos fault is that?

@Ayumi Spender.1082 said:

@Lilyanna.9361 said:

@Ayumi Spender.1082 said:

Hi,Hi...

As I wrote in my previous response, it’s been a wonderful challenge to support all Living World and Live content development for a game of this size, for five years and counting, purely through the sale of optional microtransactions.This is one thing I do admire at least.

We laid out our guiding principles for GW2 microtransactions in March 2012 and we've held true to them ever since. My motivation is to continue to stay true to those principles while also continuing to fund Live content development.Heard this during the "apology" of the rng skins.

I recently apologized for our missteps with the Mount Adoption License. Still, mount skins are purely cosmetic, thus in many ways an ideal embodiment of our goal to support the game with optional microtransactions.Once again show you don't really get why the backlash happen though...

Most of us have two relationships with the GW2 gem store. One relationship is that of a customer: we purchase things when we want them for ourselves and agree with how they’re bundled and priced. Another relationship is that of an interested party: we know that ArenaNet funds Live development through the sale of gems for cash, and we enjoy playing new content like today’s release, so we hope that the gem store does well enough to keep supporting content development. We might say, “I wouldn’t buy that!”, but if enough people buy it that it supports ongoing Live development, we’re still happy.Not going to put words in your mout... um... in your fingers...? But this sounds like "As long as whales pay for it, it's perfectly fine."

Mount skins are style items, and style items have some unique challenges. They’re subject to individual taste, so except for the very flashiest items, individual style items will have limited sales.Some of us hate flashy skritt which is why for the rng one people didn't like that factor. I wanted 1 or 2 normal/simple ones, but at the gamble of getting something that melt my eyes out.Also this once again sounds like, "We knew a lot of the ones we put in the adoption was horrible and would never sell, but we made them anyway and made a gambling set up so you can work to get the ones you want unless you were lucky."This does not sound right.

GW2 is a content-rich online world with no monthly fee, so it’s a great overall value, with microtransactions doing the heavy lifting of funding continued development of the game.I do agree with that for the most part, but I know many would complain about "content" for certain reasons. There's a lot to do in GW2.

It shouldn’t also be our goal to have the lowest-priced microtransactions. In that case, the only logical outcome would be that we could afford to make less content than other developers, and I think that’s not what any of us are looking for. I love our current pace of content development and I hope we can support it for a long time to come.The last few months I have barely seen any "lowest-priced microtransactions". One being 2000 for halloween, another 9600 for the rng, another 3000 for the Elon one, and then the 2000 Mecha Ram and ugly Chicken Peacock.

We’re all in this together. It’s obvious in your posts that you’re thoughtful and motivated to see the game do well. You balance between loving the game and not always agreeing with how gem store items are bundled or priced. That’s fair. We have a commerce team that lives that dilemma every day. We’re all doing our best for the long-term health of the game.Heard this before.

Thank you all for your passion, and again, thank you for your continued support of Live development.And back to square one like how the "apology" ended for the RNG skins.

I wish I could argue against that last tidbit; but it's true. The full armor skin sets used to cost about 700 gems; now the 3 pieces sets are like 300 a piece.

@Loosifah.4738 said:You paid 30 dollars for the expansion content; which is 20 dollars less than HoT.This helps fund the companies endeavors into the next expansion you'll likely complain about.

...with less content. No, I won't be complaining about the next expansion if it happens at all. I just won't be buying it if this is now their business model. WoW did the same thing. Chop everything up and drag everyone along.

@serialkicker.5274 said:

@GreyWolf.8670 said:I'm wondering why exactly I paid $30 for the expansion, then? What was it for? Beer and pretzels?

Uh, yours, I guess? You left me with no argument to respond to.

I think it's reasonable explanation and if data shows that's how they can best support the game, then so be it. I don't see a problem in it, but no matter how many skins you want to put in gemstore, I think putting just maybe a skin or two to be obtainable in game would make a big difference and make a lot of people happy.

I love how people are all:"What about expansions, what about the core game, what about blablabla".

Yes what about those expenses for a game you likely have spent thousands of hours or more on? Obviously they are not what keeps the game and the developer afloat.

But it's not about that, it's about the fact that arenanet has a staff which needs to get payed and the price of the game its self is not sufficient to cover. Now they have a business model in place which allows for a huge majority of players to play for free once they've payed the base price of game+expansions, the rest needs to get covered via the gem store. I'd call that more than fair.

@Cyninja.2954 said:I love how people are all:"What about expansions, what about the core game, what about blablabla".

Yes what about those expenses for a game you likely have spent thousands of hours or more on? Obviously they are not what keeps the game and the developer afloat.

But it's not about that, it's about the fact that arenanet has a staff which needs to get payed and the price of the game its self is not sufficient to cover. Now they have a business model in place which allows for a huge majority of players to play for free once they've payed the base price of game+expansions, the rest needs to get covered via the gem store. I'd call that more than fair.

I do not care about that? They are a company. My only concern for them is whether I want to buy something they make, which I now do not.

You go enjoy your camaraderie with ANet. They're not my friends. If they can no longer figure out how to make a buck that is absolutely not my fault.