1200 gems = 1 mount Skin (do you agree?) — Guild Wars 2 Forums

1200 gems = 1 mount Skin (do you agree?)

Kapax.3801Kapax.3801 Member ✭✭✭
edited August 1, 2018 in Guild Wars 2 Discussion

I recently returned to the game and I find this, 1200 gems to select a mount to taste, while a random mount costs 400 gems (but eventually you'll end up spending more gems)
Basically it has the price of 3 mounts (400x3 = 1200 = 15 $) 15 dollars for a skins seems excessive when the armor skins cost less than that (700 gems, less than 10 dollars).
A correct price for me would be between 700-800 gems (the cost of 2 mounts)
I never agreed with the Loot boxes, but I knew it was a way for them to also earn some money, but putting prices a bit inflated is not the answer either.
I would like that in the next set skins to mounts think a little better at this. And if it is possible to abandon the idea of Loot boxes.
After all, people who want to help in this game by buying gems end up discouraged when they do these things.
Do not misunderstand, Guild Wars 2 is a very good MMO, but sometimes certain attitudes of companies end up discouraging the people who support the game.

And what do other people think, do you agree with the cost of the Mounts Skins?

1200 gems = 1 mount Skin (do you agree?) 231 votes

Yes.
45%
Ariurotl.3718Rhiannon.1726Fenom.9457Dashingsteel.3410khorren.3702Arzurag.7506derd.6413starhunter.6015Manasa Devi.7958DietPepsi.4371Dante.1763DeanBB.4268Einlanzer.1627Inculpatus cedo.9234Ayrilana.1396Ajaxx.3157Mea.5491Hevoskuuri.3891Fantasy.5321LeonLeon.6097 104 votes
No.
48%
Arkham Creed.7358Kheldorn.5123ReaverKane.7598Calsie.2501Nikal.4921Endless Soul.5178Jahroots.6791somewhatobsessed.6309Dag.7359Rauderi.8706Curunen.8729Ashantara.8731BunjiKugashira.9754Asum.4960Randulf.7614SmirkDog.3160Malediktus.9250Blude.6812Kapax.3801Faowri.4159 112 votes
I do not know. (explain)
6%
Haishao.6851IndigoSundown.5419Khailyn.6248kyrie.8530Turin.6921Zedek.8932AliamRationem.5172Bloodstealer.5978Dewsitine.3645gert.7698Condutas.3580Gehenna.3625BlueCar.1587Aeon.4583Ambush.9420 15 votes
<134

Comments

  • GDchiaScrub.3241GDchiaScrub.3241 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Yes.

    Gold sink?

    D:

    RISE guild best guild super RPers trash blob guild [RISE] always dies on inc masters of the Die On Inc technique where Prince Jarvan just died.

    Holy Warriors of [Kazo] following Kazo doctrine guided by, Our Lord and Commander, Zudo in the holy Trinity of Him and his two firm glutes.

  • LordMadman.5812LordMadman.5812 Member ✭✭
    edited August 1, 2018
    Yes.

    It's a skin and doesn't affect game play so really who cares. You don't need it, and skin sales are their main way to make income. If you play the game everyday and can't spend 15 dollars occasionally, well I don't know what to tell you about that lol. SUPPORT THE GAME!

  • Haishao.6851Haishao.6851 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 1, 2018
    I do not know. (explain)

    I wouldn't care if they had the quality worth 15$USD
    But the few they showed hardly seem like they're worth 5$.

    EDIT: I just watched the rest of them from dulfy and none of them are worth close to 15$
    The jackrabbit is interesting, but not 15$ interesting.
    The mastiff, rabbit, and shark seem to be the only one that had work put into them, but they're still too expensive for what they are and the work done on them. 600 or 700 gems would have been fine for them.

  • juhani.5361juhani.5361 Member ✭✭✭
    No.

    Not as they are. The only one I even remotely liked was the mastiff. I can't see plunking down a $20.00 initial gem buy for it. I don't use the jackal enough to warrant that kind of price.

    If any of them were really to my taste, I might consider it. So far, aside from the Wintersday skins, I haven't really liked any of them.

  • Rhyse.8179Rhyse.8179 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 1, 2018
    No.

    There are 5 (now 6) mounts. To buy a full set of just the ones you want (say, all of the flaming mounts*, to go with your fire elementalist) costs 7200 gems. Anet sells 8000 gems for $100. That's COMPLETELY INSANE.

    They sell their Premium sets of 4 mounts at 2000 gems. A set of four standard, select-license skins would be 4800 gems (appx $60), . That's outright scalping.

    With HOT, I liked to buy glider skins that matched my character themes. I have a different glider for each of my mains to match their costume. I think I bought 6 or 8 skins that way. To do the same thing with mount sets would cost $600. Haha, yeah. That ain't happening. Also, because I theme my skins, I don't see the point in buying anything other then a full set, because it would break the theme. Result this time is $0 spent on POF skins, compared to the 30-50 or whatever I did for the HOT gliders. Well done.

    Anet sells 4-packs of premium skins for 2000 gems. They should offer a 1 or 2 time per account box of 4 mount selection licenses for that same 2000. That would be a reasonable price for a full set of skins IMO.

    *the flaming mounts havn't been sold individaully yet. They should be. I would buy the heck out of a 4-mount set of just the flaming mounts at the 2000 gem price.

  • Mea.5491Mea.5491 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 1, 2018
    Yes.

    Yes, for selectable ones. We also have the packs (Branded, Spooky, etc), those are 320 Gems/skin and they look great. Also, I've said this before: other MMOs have mounts for $20+ and no way to earn cash shop currency in-game. In GW2, you can buy Gems with Gold. Not many MMOs allow this.

    If they actually had skins unlockable through playing and not just only gem store items, I wouldn't care as much. But the fact that there's zero (0) you can obtain without spending money is pretty scummy.

    Convert Gold to Gems = get it without spending real money.........

  • Krypto.2069Krypto.2069 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes.

    I'm perfectly fine with it. IMO 1200 gems is not that bad to begin with for the choice and the quality of these skins.

    Here's what I do that makes this not even beginning to be a "no" answer for me:
    I just throw 100 gold at it that I put aside, which for me is about 3 days in-game salary. And I'll knock 400 gems off the price no problem (especially if I do my gold convert prior to New-Mount-Skin-Tuesday :wink:). Now "my favorite skin" is down to 800 gems, which just made it even better! :smile:

    You figure Anet released the Istani Isles Mount Skins on March 27th. So that's like 4 months between this type of higher quality, selectable mount skin offer. If that pattern holds true, most folks should be able to put 100 gold aside between now and say - late November, then convert that 100g to 400 gems when it's favorable and BAMM! -- you're all set when the next group of these types of skins are released. You'll be able to at least pick your favorite skin and spend no more than $10 USD to obtain it. (You could even just start saving half of the Daily 2g we get, and you'd have about 120g to put towards the next licensed choice mount skin release.)

    Anet gets to stay in business, I save a little money and get to choose which skin I like best.
    It's a slam dunk at point blank range for me! :+1:

    Cheers!

    Moonlight [THRU]

  • Bish.8627Bish.8627 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 1, 2018
    No.

    No, not even slightly. People voting yes have too much money it seems. My issue is this, 1200 gems, so in between 800 and 1600/1700 whatever next is.

    It basically says, this skin is second tier of gems, whatever that is in your local currency. They just plain and simple are not worth that much money. If they were 400 each, I would say you are just about scraping the value. 800 to me is even a stretch. Hell, if they were 1000 at least then you could get one and loot box a second. It is rather shady putting the price in the middle forcing you to pay for second tier gems.

    Planetside 2 have player made skins, they are not hard to knock up. Weeks work at a push. Make more skin, make them cheaper, have more people buy them.

  • Gehenna.3625Gehenna.3625 Member ✭✭✭✭
    I do not know. (explain)

    I do not know, because as the game doesn't have a sub income and it does need to make money to exist, it's no surprise that there are items in the gem store to buy. The pricing level and I think it's explained well in that post that was linked and so whether or not it's a fair price depends on whether or not you believe that Mike's being honest there. I have no reason to believe he's not but at the same time I do understand that people might find it too expensive also. It's just a price that works even if some people don't like it.

    I mean clearly people are buying them, so it is working. All I know is that I haven't seen any skins I like enough to spend money on them. But that's my choice. What I really do NOT like and am totally against is RNG when spending real money. So the fact that this price has come to be as a solution for their RNG packs, that is more problematic to me. For me though the addition of RNG in the gem store is not a sign of healthy revenue streams but rather an attempt to fix it. Of course, that also begs the question whether or not you want people to spend more on gems if it means the game will last longer. That's a tricky element in this.

    Aside from the RNG nature of the "normal" licenses, I can't say these prices are shocking since they are still cheaper. I have more issues with how much it costs to increase inventory per character or being able to buy expansions to increase stack size when you need thousands of some things when you do ascended crafting for example. That's more utility than fluff. But again, I do get that they need to make money somehow. That's why I'm on the fence on a lot of this gem store stuff.

    "In my experience, if you can't say what you mean, you can never mean what you say. The details are everything." ~ Minister Durano

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Yes.

    1,500 gems is 15 Euro of real money.

    Other MMOs sell skins for 20 Euro a piece while asking for a subscription fee (World of Warcraft).

    The pricing is fine for a cosmetic item which in no way affects game play.

  • Rasimir.6239Rasimir.6239 Member ✭✭✭

    @Rhyse.8179 said:
    There are 5 (now 6) mounts. To buy a full set of just the ones you want (say, all of the flaming mounts*, to go with your fire elementalist) costs 7200 gems. Anet sells 8000 gems for $100. That's COMPLETELY INSANE.

    Actually it only costs 5100, which is the price for the total pack of 15 skins. If you want 5+ specific skins out of this set, you'll always be better off buying the bundle rather than the 5+ skins individually. If you choose to buy them individually instead, that's on you.

    It's still around 65$ for the whole set, but that's considerably less than $100. If you do want to argue with facts, get your facts straight first, or you'll ruin your whole argument.

    Btw, double-check how much you'd pay for 5 or 6 mount skins of choice in other games ... I suspect there's not many where you'd get that many mount skins for 65$ or less.

    Disclaimer: I don't intend to pass judgement on whether or not these mount skins are priced "fair". I don't really care, as the default mount skins are fine for me (my mounts don't get out much due to getting motion sick while riding them).

  • Gehenna.3625Gehenna.3625 Member ✭✭✭✭
    I do not know. (explain)

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    1,500 gems is 15 Euro of real money.

    Other MMOs sell skins for 20 Euro a piece while asking for a subscription fee (World of Warcraft).

    The pricing is fine for a cosmetic item which in no way affects game play.

    WoW is not a great example because most of the skins there are earnable in game. SWTOR would be a better example since 95% of the skins come from their cash shop and you do need to have a sub to gain access to endgame content and then still have to pay for pretty much every skin. You can buy them from other players with in game currency but someone has to buy them first regardless.

    "In my experience, if you can't say what you mean, you can never mean what you say. The details are everything." ~ Minister Durano

  • Plautze.6290Plautze.6290 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes.

    ANet needs to make money just as every other company does.
    You could also ask the question "80.000 € = 1 Porsche?" and my answer would be the same: If you don't like the prices, don't buy it or wait for a sale.

    Rohan Blackraven | Allister Mortis | Kareem Aqbar | Mindblower Torxx

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Yes.

    @Gehenna.3625 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    1,500 gems is 15 Euro of real money.

    Other MMOs sell skins for 20 Euro a piece while asking for a subscription fee (World of Warcraft).

    The pricing is fine for a cosmetic item which in no way affects game play.

    WoW is not a great example because most of the skins there are earnable in game. SWTOR would be a better example since 95% of the skins come from their cash shop and you do need to have a sub to gain access to endgame content and then still have to pay for pretty much every skin. You can buy them from other players with in game currency but someone has to buy them first regardless.

    True, and if GW2 had a subscription we would also have in game mount skins. The fact that premium cosmetic items get sold in a subscription based game is significant enough though, and at a premium price higher than in GW2.

    The model in SWTOR does come a lot closer to GW2 with it's cartel coins and offering players to sell cash shop items (I personally prefer the gold-gem conversion but the principle is similar). Then again, SWTOR is nothing more than a F2P cash grab at this point, not sure people would want GW2 to move in that direction only to get cheaper mounts.

  • Rhyse.8179Rhyse.8179 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 1, 2018
    No.

    @Rasimir.6239 said:
    Actually it only costs 5100, which is the price for the total pack of 15 skins. If you want 5+ specific skins out of this set, you'll always be better off buying the bundle rather than the 5+ skins individually. If you choose to buy them individually instead, that's on you.

    That's still 2x what they charge for a set of 4 Premium skins. Why should I pay that much when I only want 4 anyway? Also, the math would double if the original mount license set ever gets a selection option (it has 30 instead of 15 mounts), so it would still apply then. They themselves have priced their premium skins at 500 each (the sets of 4 for 2000). How on earth is a common reskin worth twice that?

    4 Mount Skins = 2000 gems
    1 Mounts Skin = 1200 gems

    Makes no sense.

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭
    No.

    Mounts in every game are made to be an obvious cashgrab. Why are you surprised?

  • Rasimir.6239Rasimir.6239 Member ✭✭✭

    @Rhyse.8179 said:

    @Rasimir.6239 said:
    Actually it only costs 5100, which is the price for the total pack of 15 skins. If you want 5+ specific skins out of this set, you'll always be better off buying the bundle rather than the 5+ skins individually. If you choose to buy them individually instead, that's on you.

    That's still 2x what they charge for a set of 4 Premium skins. Why should I pay that much when I only want 4 anyway? Also, the math would double if the original mount license set ever gets a selection option (it has 30 instead of 15 mounts), so it would still apply then. They themselves have priced their premium skins at 500 each (the sets of 4 for 2000). How on earth is a common reskin worth twice that?

    4 Mount Skins = 2000 gems
    1 Mounts Skin = 1200 gems

    Makes no sense.

    Again, in your comparison you seem to conveniently forget that there are also skins priced differently that make 1.2k gems per skin seem like a bargain. Or did you forget that there's at least one skin per mount (excluding beetle for now) that's priced at 2k?

    They're offering skins in different packages and at different price points, most likely to target different audiences. For me for example, if I ever were to get into mount skins, the 2k/5 sets aren't attractive, because if I want to invest in mount skins, I want variety. Buying the 5-pack for 2k gems would force 5 skins of the same theme on me, while the adoption licenses allow me to grab differently themed skins.

    The 5-skin packs are obviously aimed at people that prefer themed skins and are willing to invest just to "round out the set", while the adoption licenses are aimed at people who prefer variety, and the 2k per mount skins are aimed at those who like it flashy. Makes perfect sense to me.

  • Belorn.2659Belorn.2659 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 1, 2018

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:
    Gold sink?

    @crepuscular.9047 said:
    unlike other MMOs, GW2 offers the options to trading in your liquid gold into gems, and there is no restriction on what items you can spend your gems on; so it's lost revenue for anet.

    @Mea.5491 said:
    Convert Gold to Gems = get it without spending real money.........

    This myth needs to end. Anet do not sell gems for gold. Never have, never did.
    What Anet does is to have a market place where players can sell gems to other players, and anet takes a 40% cut. It is called gold selling, and unlike other MMOs Anet has created a legal venue for gold selling where they can tax it heavily. It is a good deal for everyone involved but its not lost revenue for anet.

    Player A buy gems for 21$.
    They put it in the gem store and and get 1.2k gold temporarily from the bank, and now there is 13.44$ worth of gems there after Anet tax.
    Player B buys the gems for the 1.2k gold that player A wanted, and put it into the bank and restore the balance sheet. They end up with the 13.44$ worth of gems that remained after taxes.

    Buying gems for gold nets Anet 140% revenue compared to just going to the store and buy it there. The bank always win, and they will get the money somehow. It is either from gold selling where you as a player work for hire in the game to other players, or through your credit card. One way or an other you are a revenue source for Anet.

    A bit upside of all this is that Anet has a direct incentive to go after illegal gold sellers since those are lost revenue. We the players get a better economy and safer game, and Anet get to have a monopoly on gold selling and tax it. People who want to farm gold and sell it to other players for gems can do it and buyers have a legit method to buy gold for money. Everyone wins. Lets just not pretend that its "lost revenue". The service to trade money for gold is the single biggest revenue source in the game for Anet and 40% tax is a huge one.

  • @crepuscular.9047 said:
    unlike other MMOs, GW2 offers the options to trading in your liquid gold into gems, and there is no restriction on what items you can spend your gems on; so it's lost revenue for anet.

    If you decide to spend real money, by all means use real money, you are supporting anet to continue to pay their employees to continue to bring out new contents.
    I'm in support of anet to keep GW2 going and for the many years to come, so I dont mind forking out $100-$300 annually since there's no subscription fee to begin with.


    at the end of the day, Vote with your Wallet
    if you do appreciate the work anet devs put into the game, show a bit of appreciation and support by buying something small off gem store with real money

    Lost revenue from gold to gems is reflected in the gem exchange rates (when gems not previously owned by another player are given the rate goes up). Unless Anet supplies the exchange with free gems to lower the rate, it doesn't look like Anet loose any revenue from the exchange anymore as the exchange rate seems to be quite stable.

  • Bloodstealer.5978Bloodstealer.5978 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 1, 2018
    I do not know. (explain)

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:
    Mounts in every game are made to be an obvious cashgrab. Why are you surprised?

    Well, share with us how you think ANET should go about making money in order to keep the development going.
    Its hardly a cashgrab when you have a choice of ways to purchase and you are not in fact forced to purchase anything because at the end of the day its purely a cosmetic item that makes no difference in your ability to play the game.

    The bottom line is none of us know how much profit ANET makes on a mount skin priced at 400 gems, but it will be less if we decide to buy in bulk, as I am sure most players will do, me included. So if you don't want to acknowledge its a cosmetic collection of skin rather than a game of chance then you can take the premium option and buy the one of choice, but none of us know how much profit ANET make on a 1200 gem skin either. Individually of course they make more but over how many are sold in comparison to the, say 5 skins for 1800 gems.. its all about covering bases for the business. They take a risk putting anything out for sale, so yes they have to put a few carrots out there... but it's up to you to choose whether to take a bite of a carrot or not, and then decide which carrot you prefer.

    Or would you prefer ANET to start charging a monthly sub instead?

    Life is what YOU make it... NOT what others tell you!

  • Mea.5491Mea.5491 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Yes.

    @Belorn.2659 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:
    Gold sink?

    @crepuscular.9047 said:
    unlike other MMOs, GW2 offers the options to trading in your liquid gold into gems, and there is no restriction on what items you can spend your gems on; so it's lost revenue for anet.

    @Mea.5491 said:
    Convert Gold to Gems = get it without spending real money.........

    This myth needs to end. Anet do not sell gems for gold. Never have, never did.
    What Anet does is to have a market place where players can sell gems to other players, and anet takes a 40% cut. It is called gold selling, and unlike other MMOs Anet has created a legal venue for gold selling where they can tax it heavily. It is a good deal for everyone involved but its not lost revenue for anet.

    Player A buy gems for 21$.
    They put it in the gem store and and get 1.2k gold temporarily from the bank, and now there is 13.44$ worth of gems there after Anet tax.
    Player B buys the gems for the 1.2k gold that player A wanted, and put it into the bank and restore the balance sheet. They end up with the 13.44$ worth of gems that remained after taxes.

    Buying gems for gold nets Anet 140% revenue compared to just going to the store and buy it there. The bank always win, and they will get the money somehow. It is either from gold selling where you as a player work for hire in the game to other players, or through your credit card. One way or an other you are a revenue source for Anet.

    A bit upside of all this is that Anet has a direct incentive to go after illegal gold sellers since those are lost revenue. We the players get a better economy and safer game, and Anet get to have a monopoly on gold selling and tax it. People who want to farm gold and sell it to other players for gems can do it and buyers have a legit method to buy gold for money. Everyone wins. Lets just not pretend that its "lost revenue". The service to trade money for gold is the single biggest revenue source in the game for Anet and 40% tax is a huge one.

    Doesn't change the fact that you can get Gem Store stuff with Gold.

  • Abakk.9176Abakk.9176 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 1, 2018
    No.

    I think it would be more profitable to make more and sell for less and set a few top designs aside for a higher price.

    Also the 400 gems blind date i don't agree with. You should be able to see what you buy at all times. I'd buy some of those if i could actually chose.

  • Yes.

    Anet's got to make money some way. This is a luxury item and not necessary to the game.

  • Feanor.2358Feanor.2358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    It's not something mandatory, you know. Think it's priced too high? Then don't buy. Simple.
    Personally, I prefer the random draw discounted packs. I'll eventually buy all of the available skins and they'll cost me much less on average. But there are usually at least several skins per pack I actually like. If it was a single one? Yeah, I'd buy a selection license without giving it a second thought.

  • Hevoskuuri.3891Hevoskuuri.3891 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes.

    Like others have mentioned, mount skins are luxury items without any real convenience. 1200 gems allows you to skip the gamble if you want a specific skin, and that's ok in my book. If you want anything other than a vanilla mount, the 400-gem gamble is pretty cheap.

    Maybe 1200 gems is a little overpriced (I'd prefer 800 or 1000) but then again, so are most things in the gem store IMO. Well, Anet needs the income to push out free LW episodes and cheap xpacs so I can't complain.

  • juhani.5361juhani.5361 Member ✭✭✭
    No.

    Random aside: I'd pay 1200 gems to unlock all dye channels on the mounts I have.

  • Danikat.8537Danikat.8537 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I don't think there is a correct price, or even an ideal price, for cosmetic items in games. What's cheap for one person is too expensive for someone else - either because they can't afford as much or because they don't like the item as much. There's some mount skins I probably wouldn't use even if I got them free, so I wouldn't buy them at any price. Others I'd be happy to pay for. With gold - gems it gets even more complicated, I know I'm more willing to buy expensive things with gold because I don't farm it, I just get it while doing things I'd do anyway so gold is basically free for me.

    1,200 gems is expensive to me. It's more than I've ever paid for a mount and almost exactly the (somewhat arbitrary) limit of £12 I set as the most I'd pay for a mount version of one of my favourite animals in another game. So for the right mount yes I'd pay it. But it would have to be one I really like.

    Although the main thing putting me off buying the new mount skins is that I've already got the branded pack and all the Istani ones. That gives me a pretty good selection and I'm not sure I'd use any new ones enough to justify it. Except maybe a beetle skin, but if I'm going to spend 1,200 for a beetle skin I may as well spend 2,000 for a pangolin...but then that really is expensive...

    "You can run like a river, Till you end up in the sea,
    And you run till night is black, And keep on going in your dreams,
    And you know all the long while, It's the journey that you seek,
    It's the miles of moving forward, With the wind beneath your wings."

  • Curunen.8729Curunen.8729 Member ✭✭✭✭
    No.

    I don't agree with 1200, would prefer slightly lower at 1000 max (800 min).

    However this won't stop me from buying one or two select licenses that I like - next time I log on I'm certainly going to buy the kourna jackrabbit first.

    It's highly unlikely for me ever to want more than two or three mount skins from any of these packs that offer select licenses, so the random license packs may as well not exist for me.

    IH hybrid | My ears, how are you! | Kourna Jackrabbit for default Springer

  • Rasimir.6239Rasimir.6239 Member ✭✭✭

    @Abakk.9176 said:
    Also the 400 gems blind date i don't agree with. You should be able to see what you buy at all times. I'd buy some of those if i could actually chose.

    Why? There's people that enjoy playing the lottery. Why not give them the chance to do so? If you don't want to buy lottery tickets that's your choice, but if Anet can make money by giving other players something they enjoy, that sounds like a win-win to me.

  • derd.6413derd.6413 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Yes.

    Probably because some ppl buy (or at least partly) gems with gold

    I Have No friends, so I Must pug

  • Kheldorn.5123Kheldorn.5123 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 1, 2018
    No.

    @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

    @Kheldorn.5123 said:
    Mounts in every game are made to be an obvious cashgrab. Why are you surprised?

    some words I didn't read

    I have no reason to share anything for free, you know. Anyway, I accept mounts are cashgrab, I knew when mounts were leaked that's how it's gonna be with skins for them. There is no way they gonna change it so why bother talking about it :)

  • Zedek.8932Zedek.8932 Member ✭✭✭
    I do not know. (explain)

    They should price their skins accordingly to the effort they went into.
    First, this makes it more accessible for people with low income (or parents not allowing such things) to have less impressive but more affordable ones.
    Secondly, high priced skins create a bit of a feel of luxury to them. I'm myself not so much in the current socialist thinking of "Let's all be equally poor". Here and there a nice thing to treat yourself is fine and boosts the income of this great game that it really deserves.

    Also, let's be honest: Who wants or needs all of the skins? I could not find a single one that I'd like to replace my Springer with, even though they ideas are neat (like the lop-eared one). If I'd get a skin for Jerry, then it'd be one. I can't see people switching back and forth the skins that would require it to have them all.

    Excelsior.

    Excelsior, my name is Zedexx; Asuran Deadeye and assassin.
    The Hunter / 2x Darksteel Pistols / 2x Whisper's Secret Daggers and my Springer. That's all I need and trust.
    "We [Asura] are the concentrated magnificence!"

  • Ashen.2907Ashen.2907 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Yes.

    @SmirkDog.3160 said:
    If they actually had skins unlockable through playing and not just only gem store items, I wouldn't care as much. But the fact that there's zero (0) you can obtain without spending money is pretty scummy.

    People can say "well just don't buy it", but cosmetic items or skins make the game more enjoyable, whether they're gem store ones or not. Devs that make and sell skins and don't put any in the game itself know exactly what they're doing.

    Your fact is not factual. All of the skins can acquired without spending money. There are zero (0) that require real money to be spent.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 1, 2018
    Yes.

    @Mea.5491 said:

    @Belorn.2659 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:
    Gold sink?

    @crepuscular.9047 said:
    unlike other MMOs, GW2 offers the options to trading in your liquid gold into gems, and there is no restriction on what items you can spend your gems on; so it's lost revenue for anet.

    @Mea.5491 said:
    Convert Gold to Gems = get it without spending real money.........

    This myth needs to end. Anet do not sell gems for gold. Never have, never did.
    What Anet does is to have a market place where players can sell gems to other players, and anet takes a 40% cut. It is called gold selling, and unlike other MMOs Anet has created a legal venue for gold selling where they can tax it heavily. It is a good deal for everyone involved but its not lost revenue for anet.

    Player A buy gems for 21$.
    They put it in the gem store and and get 1.2k gold temporarily from the bank, and now there is 13.44$ worth of gems there after Anet tax.
    Player B buys the gems for the 1.2k gold that player A wanted, and put it into the bank and restore the balance sheet. They end up with the 13.44$ worth of gems that remained after taxes.

    Buying gems for gold nets Anet 140% revenue compared to just going to the store and buy it there. The bank always win, and they will get the money somehow. It is either from gold selling where you as a player work for hire in the game to other players, or through your credit card. One way or an other you are a revenue source for Anet.

    A bit upside of all this is that Anet has a direct incentive to go after illegal gold sellers since those are lost revenue. We the players get a better economy and safer game, and Anet get to have a monopoly on gold selling and tax it. People who want to farm gold and sell it to other players for gems can do it and buyers have a legit method to buy gold for money. Everyone wins. Lets just not pretend that its "lost revenue". The service to trade money for gold is the single biggest revenue source in the game for Anet and 40% tax is a huge one.

    Doesn't change the fact that you can get Gem Store stuff with Gold.

    Actually it does. Not only are the implications vastly different, but going about balancing and designing around either scenario is vastly different.

    You not understanding the difference or not caring about it does not change this.

    A.) Arenanet provides a platform on which players can exchange gold and gems between each other. It's a currency exchange which also has a tax on both transactions.

    B.) gems do not get created out of thin air (except those granted for achievement points on a 1 time basis per account). They must be bought by another player

    C.) gold gets introduced into the economy via in game interaction

    The only revenue Arenanet gains from this is people buying gems for real life money. Please try to comprehend this. The tax is both a drain on in game gold as well as a deterrent to prevent price manipulation. (it's also not 40% but close to 27.7% since the tax is 15% both ways).

  • Belorn.2659Belorn.2659 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 1, 2018

    @PseudoNewb.5468 said:
    Lost revenue from gold to gems is reflected in the gem exchange rates (when gems not previously owned by another player are given the rate goes up). Unless Anet supplies the exchange with free gems to lower the rate, it doesn't look like Anet loose any revenue from the exchange anymore as the exchange rate seems to be quite stable.

    The economist and designer of the gem exchange system did write a bit on the topic during the time he was employed by Anet, and he claimed that all sold gems are were once bought (or given through achievements. credit: Cyninja.2954 ) by other players. The price is as he said purely a player based economy of sellers and buyers. How exactly that is translated to an algorithm that adjust price on the exchange is unknown, but given his academic background in economy it is likely similar to that of stock exchanges. The stock exchange don't create more stocks as prices goes up.

    A mock-up algorithm could be like this: When a person sell 1 gem, put it in the store but increase the initial price by 20%. For everyday decrease it by 1%. If it sells when its above 100% the general prices goes up, if it doesn't then prices goes down. Only 1 gem is ever sold for every gem put in so no magic creation of gems by the exchange, but prices will fluctuate based on demand and supply. Since the initial price is fixed the seller of gems never loose any revenue, and thanks to taxes it gets very profitable in the long run regardless of the exchange prices.

    The algorithm is likely much more complex than that, and the fact that they tax the transaction on both ends means there is a lot of room to influence and make the price more stable without the exchange going into red.

  • LucianDK.8615LucianDK.8615 Member ✭✭✭✭

    You get far more value out of the random packs. I got the 4 skins in wanted in two packs. and trailblazer for beetle is a sleeper hit.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The reason they are expensive is because you can get them with gold.
    1200 gems = 15$ but also 346 gold, which is "nothing" for many players.

    What I will never understand in this game is that there is no bulk gem price discount, even the worst companies out there (in terms of consumer friendliness) have it.
    The current gem prices are as follows:
    800 - 10$
    1600 - 20$
    2800 - 35$
    4000 - 50$
    8000 -100$

    They should be like (not well-thought out numbers, just an example):
    800 - 10$
    1600 - 18$
    2800 - 32$
    4000 - 44$
    8000 - 92$

    It's really puzzling me how companies like Activision, EA and WB, that have very exploitative market practices at least got this right. I think the prices are fair, making the single mount skins cost double instead of triple wouldn't make much sense in my opinion, because that way there would be very little reason to buy the RNG ones, unless you like them all or something.

    What I'd like to see is Arenanet doing something about the cash -> gems conversion, something that has never been touched in the past. Obviously the above discounts would only work when buying gems with cash and have absolutely no effect when you buy them with gold. Make your customers happy and introduce some discounts and I'm sure more people will start using their wallets.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @kharmin.7683 said:

    @Batel.9206 said:

    However, I don't know ArenaNet's reasoning behind the prices being the way they are.

    This is why

    Important part:

    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.

    Those items "work" because I suspect lower-priced individual items are being bought with gold instead of gems. How to fix this is rather simple, offer better conversion rates (discounts) when using cash -> gems. Add some freaking seasonal discounts too, like "every August, with the anniversary of the game's release, your next gem purchase is 20% off, offer only lasts for a week or two.". That way they can keep their high prices to discourage players from buying those skins with gold, but make buying them with cash artificially "cheaper". There is a reason most retail stores offer discounts, and it's during the discount period that they make more profit. Only Arenanet doesn't like getting our cash.

  • Turin.6921Turin.6921 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 1, 2018
    I do not know. (explain)

    I find it overpriced but i do not mind. I would not spend money on this and will wait for bundles but if someone thinks its a fair price all the power to them. It is overpriced but not ridiculously overpriced to make the option non-viable.

    As long as there are still good bundles with 400 gems a skin and there is a direct purchase that is not ridiculously overpriced alongside the exploitative rng for the licenses i am fine with it.

  • Rasimir.6239Rasimir.6239 Member ✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    What I will never understand in this game is that there is no bulk gem price discount, even the worst companies out there (in terms of consumer friendliness) have it.

    It's really puzzling me how companies like Activision, EA and WB, that have very exploitative market practices at least got this right.

    Actually they didn't. With the way Anet currently sells gems, I can buy however many gems I want at any time and always know I'm getting the full value of gems, no matter how much money I spend at any given time. If anything, the way your prefered model works to me is exploiting the user, as buying anything less than the highest priced gem pack at any given time will leave you with the feeling that you didn't get "full value" for your money. If spending $10 now and $10 next week will give me less gems than spending $20 up front, it'll always make me feel cheated. Personally, I'm less inclined to spend any money at all that way.

    What I'd like to see is Arenanet doing something about the cash -> gems conversion, something that has never been touched in the past. Make your customers happy and introduce some discounts and I'm sure more people will start using their wallets.

    I think you'll find not just me but a lot more people spending less money or at least be less happy if you introduce discounts for bulk purchases (see explanation above). If anything's exploitative, this is.

  • Mea.5491Mea.5491 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Yes.

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    Actually it does. Not only are the implications vastly different, but going about balancing and designing around either scenario is vastly different.

    You not understanding the difference or not caring about it does not change this.

    A.) Arenanet provides a platform on which players can exchange gold and gems between each other. It's a currency exchange which also has a tax on both transactions.

    B.) gems do not get created out of thin air (except those granted for achievement points on a 1 time basis per account). They must be bought by another player

    C.) gold gets introduced into the economy via in game interaction

    The only revenue Arenanet gains from this is people buying gems for real life money. Please try to comprehend this. The tax is both a drain on in game gold as well as a deterrent to prevent price manipulation. (it's also not 40% but close to 27.7% since the tax is 15% both ways).

    It's obvious that Anet only gets a profit for Gems bought with real money (duh) and of course there will be a tax... But I still like this system because I can't always buy Gems with real money. -shrugs-

  • Danikat.8537Danikat.8537 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @maddoctor.2738 said:
    The reason they are expensive is because you can get them with gold.
    1200 gems = 15$ but also 346 gold, which is "nothing" for many players.

    What I will never understand in this game is that there is no bulk gem price discount, even the worst companies out there (in terms of consumer friendliness) have it.
    The current gem prices are as follows:
    800 - 10$
    1600 - 20$
    2800 - 35$
    4000 - 50$
    8000 -100$

    They should be like (not well-thought out numbers, just an example):
    800 - 10$
    1600 - 18$
    2800 - 32$
    4000 - 44$
    8000 - 92$

    It's really puzzling me how companies like Activision, EA and WB, that have very exploitative market practices at least got this right. I think the prices are fair, making the single mount skins cost double instead of triple wouldn't make much sense in my opinion, because that way there would be very little reason to buy the RNG ones, unless you like them all or something.

    What I'd like to see is Arenanet doing something about the cash -> gems conversion, something that has never been touched in the past. Obviously the above discounts would only work when buying gems with cash and have absolutely no effect when you buy them with gold. Make your customers happy and introduce some discounts and I'm sure more people will start using their wallets.

    According to one interpretation those discounts are also an exploitative marketing practice. It encourages people to buy more gems (or equivalent cash shop currency) than they currently need to get the discount and then it removes the psychological barrier of getting out your card and paying real money for more gems next time you want something, which means people are more likely to buy things they only sort-of want. In other words they spend those gems faster than they would if they were just buying what they need each time and end up buying more in the long run.

    This is also why the bundles of cash shop currency you can buy rarely match the price of items exactly. How many times have people mentioned buying black lion keys with 'spare' gems from a purchase? If they buy 800 gems and use them to get a 700 gem item a lot of people will buy another 25 gems with gold and get a key rather than save the 100 gems to add to other 'left over' gems until they can get an item they want without buying more gems.

    Of course for other people discounts on larger volumes of gems can lead to saving money in the long run, but even though I'm one of those people (I never buy extra stuff just to get rid of 'spare' currency, I'd rather keep it until I actually want something) I can't say I've ever missed it. In Elder Scrolls Online I'll always buy 5,500 crowns at a time even if I only need a few hundred (there are larger packs but the discount on them is barely more than the 5,500 pack and the prices get very expensive) and I have occasionally bought more when they were offering a sale, especially when it was 40% off. But all it means is I think of £29.99 for 5,500 (or £0.54 per 100 crowns) as the 'default' price just like I think of £8.50 for 800 gems as the default in GW2. It doesn't actually feel like a saving, it just means it's not worth buying the smaller packs.

    "You can run like a river, Till you end up in the sea,
    And you run till night is black, And keep on going in your dreams,
    And you know all the long while, It's the journey that you seek,
    It's the miles of moving forward, With the wind beneath your wings."

  • No.

    The reason for the inflated gem store pricing is because anet allows gold to gems convertions, so they have to take into account the people that live on the game and farm gold ( make the population look good). If this wasnt the case prices would be lower so you would buy more. But they have to offset the fact people can get thier stuff for free as a gold sink. So others must be charged more so they keep profits high. I will prob just convert gold to cover half the cost so i only pay 600 gems for a mount. I dont like this system but it is what it is.

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Rasimir.6239 said:
    Actually they didn't. With the way Anet currently sells gems, I can buy however many gems I want at any time and always know I'm getting the full value of gems, no matter how much money I spend at any given time. If anything, the way your prefered model works to me is exploiting the user, as buying anything less than the highest priced gem pack at any given time will leave you with the feeling that you didn't get "full value" for your money. If spending $10 now and $10 next week will give me less gems than spending $20 up front, it'll always make me feel cheated. Personally, I'm less inclined to spend any money at all that way.

    You are missing the point of bulk discounts, the highest gem pack is also very expensive, it's already at 100$. You feel "cheated" because you like the current system and you buy gems in small quantities, that won't change. However, those that can pay more gems upfront (even if there is nothing that they currently like) will benefit heavily from it. You will either get the highest gem pack, paying 92$ each time (a very high upfront price) or you choose to pay any smaller amount, for lower upfront price, but less efficiency. The key here is to allow those that can pay more, to benefit from it.

    I think you'll find not just me but a lot more people spending less money or at least be less happy if you introduce discounts for bulk purchases (see explanation above). If anything's exploitative, this is.

    Can't see why someone that is willing to pay 100$ get the same benefit as someone who pays 10$.

    If the bulk discount is not to your liking, what about seasonal discounts instead?

©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.