I don't understand Arenanet's philosophy on making money off the gemstore.

Tuesday, when the skins for the warclaw were released, I was about to buy them because I wanted the branded skin. Right as I was about to complete the purchase, I stopped because I really didn't want the rest of the skins. I would have been a waste of money. In fact, there's a lot of skins I don't go for because I can't directly buy them. There are roughly 17 mount skins and 2 glider skins that immediately come to mind. I have to ask the guys in charge of how things are sold to us, is it really worth it? I can only imagine that I'm not the only one holding out until they can buy what they want directly or at least a way having said skins sold on the trading posts so I can convert cash into gold and buy them that way. On the other hand, setting things up so players have to purchase more than necessary to get what they want feels careless at best and predatory at worse. To make matters worse, some of these things are over 2 years old and there's still no direct way to buy them. Surely by now, nearly everyone whom was willing to shell out the extra cash to guarantee getting what they want have done so by now.

Isn't it time you set up direct sales to these items by now so you can profit off of those whom are holding out? I can't speak for anyone else but I certainly am not budging on my stance. I'm never going to buy black lion keys as long as black lion chests are loot boxes. Also, I'm not going to buy skin packs unless I want all the skins in them. Whenever you decide to sell all the gem store items directly or allow all the skins to be posted on the trading posts, let me know. I and my wallet will be waiting.

If one is hoping bundled items would be offered at the same Gem cost individually, it probably won't soon happen. Unfortunately, lower Gem-cost items result in little extra revenue, as many employ the Gold-to-Gem option.Do keep in mind that, as far as Mount Skins go, many are offered individually outside of bundles, at an increased cost to bypass RNG.As much as another marketing plan might benefit some players, it's the marketing plan that ArenaNet chooses that probably benefits the studio the most.

Good luck.

During "mountsgate" they said clearly that they are doing it this way because it makes them more money. Not in these exact words but it was still really transparent.

@Crossplay.2067 said:On the other hand, setting things up so players have to purchase more than necessary to get what they want feels careless at best and predatory at worse.

That's the entire point. To make players purchase more than what they want. Hence the random mount skin boxes and the mount skin packs.

@Crossplay.2067 said:I'm never going to buy black lion keys as long as black lion chests are loot boxes.

A lot of people are buying them anyway.

Your best bet is hoping the USA forbids loot boxes, that's the only way this kind of thing would go away.

@Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:If one is hoping bundled items would be offered at the same Gem cost individually, it probably won't soon happen. Unfortunately, lower Gem-cost items result in little extra revenue, as many employ the Gold-to-Gem option.

Where did ANet state that gold-to-gems is the reason why low-priced individual skins don't generate enough revenue? What I remember ANet saying was that cosmetics don't appeal to everyone, and that as a result selling low-priced fixed-ticket skins does not generate the kind of revenue needed to support development. Apparently, selling bigger-ticket skins does, as does selling bundles. If a 2000 gem skin or bundle sells 10,000 units because of desirable skin, selling that skin as a stand-alone for 400 gems would have to sell 50,000 units just for ANet to break even. Apparently, the opportunity cost of selling a low-priced skin as a stand-alone is too high.

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:If one is hoping bundled items would be offered at the same Gem cost individually, it probably won't soon happen. Unfortunately, lower Gem-cost items result in little extra revenue, as many employ the Gold-to-Gem option.

They didn't state it, but it has to be true. It's too easy to farm gold in this game and there are quite a number of people in my guild who never spend a dollar on gems, because they farm gold to convert. As the game goes further and further along, there's more and more gold being made too...more and more rich people. I'm not particularly rich and I'm sitting on 5500 gold and I make legendaries pretty much regularlly.

The thing is, I'm not sure how it wouldn't be true. Most other games, you buy from the cash shop, you have to pay cash. Here there's another option. You make stuff too cheap, everyone buys the one "coolest" skin, with gold, or many do, and that's that.

We know from experience in other games, that only a small percentage of the playerbase pays cash for games in non-sub games. Many people come to games that don't have subs to save money. Ergo they're not likely to fork out money when they can just farm gold. Not everyone, but I'd wager a decent percentage of the population.

If even only 25% of the people would do it, you're losing 25% of your sales. You make stuff more expensive and less people will have access to the funds to do it. The people who don't mind paying will pay. Anet did state that they found offering expensive packages made them more money....they never said why one way or another. I strongly suspect this is why.

@Vayne.8563 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:If one is hoping bundled items would be offered at the same Gem cost individually, it probably won't soon happen. Unfortunately, lower Gem-cost items result in little extra revenue, as many employ the Gold-to-Gem option.

The only way whatever % of players who'd switch to using cash could be factored as an opportunity cost would be if ANet scrapped gold-for-gems and kept gems-for-gold. That would turn the half-exchange into a gold faucet. The more people who exchange gold for gems, the better gems-to-gold looks. Every time the gold-for-gems spikes up, it tends back down, though the equilibrium point does get higher over time. That strongly suggests that some gold buyers take advantage of the spikes to better their return.

How much revenue does gems-to-gold produce? We don't know. However, how likely is it that the people who use the gems-to-gold portion of the exchange are at or approaching "whale" status? If ANet scrapped the exchange, they'd be out revenue unless the players who would switch to using cash made up for the revenue lost from players who currently buy gems to get gold. As you say, the percentage who'd shell out cash is not likely to be huge. My take is that 25% would be very optimistic.

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@Vayne.8563 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:If one is hoping bundled items would be offered at the same Gem cost individually, it probably won't soon happen. Unfortunately, lower Gem-cost items result in little extra revenue, as many employ the Gold-to-Gem option.

Anet said, directly that they make more money on packages that are more expensive. That's not something we're guessing at. It was directly stated by Mike O"Brien. Logically there's a reason for that. My guess is that the cheaper stuff doesn't usually get paid for in cash, where the more expensive stuff does. I can't really think of another reason.

@"Vayne.8563" said:

Anet said, directly that they make more money on packages that are more expensive. That's not something we're guessing at. It was directly stated by Mike O"Brien. Logically there's a reason for that. My guess is that the cheaper stuff doesn't usually get paid for in cash, where the more expensive stuff does. I can't really think of another reason.

Absolutely. You want another reason? Think Occam's Razor, and keep it simple.

If a given, desirable skin is big-ticket or part of a package, all it takes is enough people who are willing to plunk down that price for that skin to more than make up for the people who won't buy unless it was sold at a low price. You'd also have to factor in whether the big-ticket buyers would spend more if package items were sold at higher separate prices.

O'Brien's statement included an opener, in which he stated that cosmetics don't appeal across-the-board because of different tastes. This strongly suggests that the market for a given skin is smaller than it might be for certain non-cosmetic items, and that not every item in a package is going to be equally desirable. All you have to do is look at the complaints about the current package offering undesirable skins to see that.

@Crossplay.2067 said:Tuesday, when the skins for the warclaw were released, I was about to buy them because I wanted the branded skin. Right as I was about to complete the purchase, I stopped because I really didn't want the rest of the skins. I would have been a waste of money. In fact, there's a lot of skins I don't go for because I can't directly buy them.

I'd tend to agree as I'm one of those individuals who weighs desire for an item to the likely cost of obtaining it. That being said, I have a rather generous standard when it comes to stuff like that and frequency of purchases also plays a factor (even if something might seem too pricey now, it might feel less so a couple of months down the line where I didn't purchase any game-related stuff).

@Crossplay.2067 said:There are roughly 17 mount skins and 2 glider skins that immediately come to mind. I have to ask the guys in charge of how things are sold to us, is it really worth it? I can only imagine that I'm not the only one holding out until they can buy what they want directly or at least a way having said skins sold on the trading posts so I can convert cash into gold and buy them that way.

I believe this is as intended.

One factor I often think about when it comes to desire is exclusivity. As much as I like something, one thing that affects my enjoyment of a thing is how often I see a thing or how popular a thing is or how easy a thing is to obtain. Each of such considerations aren't always applicable and have different effects on just how much I want a thing.

I think it's a possible reason why people had a love/hate for Greatsword...it's an awesome weapon with awesome skins but everyone uses it and everyone uses the same skins or go for the same legendaries. If the weapon weren't so cool, it'd probably have a neutral audience.

Same could apply for a great new outfit that is released. People will sigh and roll their eyes as everyone goes off to wear the new hotness (this is how I felt when wings were the new craze but I honestly feel the same now as wing backpieces are kinda corny when you really stop to think about it).

Basically, where I'm getting at is, the skin you want isn't desirable enough for you to throw regret to the wind and put cash/gems down on it but it IS desirable enough for others. For net profit, it doesn't really matter because the more options you have to buy, the less you're going to care about more options going forward. For in-game desirability, you not purchasing it makes the item less common and more exclusive thus more interesting and desirable to someone.

There will be other sales and other skins and as you interact with the activity of being a consumer, you'll be more and more aware of what you want, might want or don't. But a sucker is born every day and a bright-eyed consumer will buy impulsively. It's not predatory, though. Just have to understand the more savvy a consumer is, the harder it is to sell them things without cutting deeper and deeper into profits (case in point: your OP).

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@"Vayne.8563" said:

Anet said, directly that they make more money on packages that are more expensive. That's not something we're guessing at. It was directly stated by Mike O"Brien. Logically there's a reason for that. My guess is that the cheaper stuff doesn't usually get paid for in cash, where the more expensive stuff does. I can't really think of another reason.

I think that they've had smaller items sold for very long periods of time, that more people could have bought, but they STILL make more doing it this way. However, if you don't think gold to gems factors in, I don't see how it can't. It has to be part of the equation. I never said it's the whole equation.

The bundling and other practices I can understand. What honestly leaves me scratching my head is the cost of some of the utility items. The price compared to the utility offered seems pretty high.

Does anybody actually buy revive orbs? I mean, presumably people must, otherwise it would be lower. But I don't understand why they'd pay such a premium for such a little thing. For 250 gems, I could get a zone with loads of content. The convenience of not having to go to a waypoint and paying one or two silver can't possibly be worth the 99 gold it would take to buy those gems, or the 3 dollars it would cost me if I bought the gems with cash.

To be clear, I'm a whale. I have spent more money on this game than I should have. I shell out for games I like because I want them to continue development. But paying 3 bucks for a single use consumable that doesn't even offer that much convenience - I need more to justify that kind of price. If I sound irate, I'm sincerely not. I'm just really perplexed. I think I'm pretty representative of the average whale, so if I'm not willing to bite, who is?

It just seems like a really strange decision, and I'm honestly genuinely interested in why it's priced that way. Monetization is an aspect of game development that I'd like to understand more of.

@Vayne.8563 said:They didn't state it, but it has to be true.Wasn't it you who said...

@Vayne.8563 said:I feel like there's a lot of misinformation and speculation in this thread.

...And now you are also engaging in speculation?

@"Leo G.4501" said:One factor I often think about when it comes to desire is exclusivity. As much as I like something, one thing that affects my enjoyment of a thing is how often I see a thing or how popular a thing is or how easy a thing is to obtain. Each of such considerations aren't always applicable and have different effects on just how much I want a thing.

The flaw in your argument is assuming that people think like you do. You may care about "exclusivity" and so on, but not everyone else does.

@Erasculio.2914 said:

@"Leo G.4501" said:One factor I often think about when it comes to desire is exclusivity. As much as I like something, one thing that affects my enjoyment of a thing is how often I see a thing or how popular a thing is or how easy a thing is to obtain. Each of such considerations aren't always applicable and have different effects on just how much I want a thing.

I didn't assume that, rather described my personal reason why exclusivity plays a role.

Your reply doesn't really debunk that people factor in exclusivity in how they view a reward, prize or purchases or if exclusivity is valued. It is a factor and it has value.

@Vayne.8563 said:

I think that they've had smaller items sold for very long periods of time, that more people could have bought, but they STILL make more doing it this way. However, if you don't think gold to gems factors in, I don't see how it can't. It has to be part of the equation. I never said it's the whole equation.

What we don't know is whether the exchange generates more revenue than ANet would get without it. That possibility gets short shrift because people believe that whales buying gems for gold are not going to counter-balance people who might spend for gems if there were no exchange. I believe that there are a raft of people who are never going to spend cash for gem store items. I also believe that if ANet thought the gold exchange were seriously impacting their revenue, it might already be gone -- though they'd doubtless have to consider how much salt that would bring.

It seems like bigger-ticket items are coming into play more and more as the game ages. That could be due to the possibility that a lot of players already have the non-cosmetic gem items they want, so sales of things like character slots, bags, bank slots, etc. may not be generating the same level of revenue as when the game was young. If staple items are generating less revenue, then other items would need to step up.

Anyway, to return the thread topic, the answer to why ANet uses the big-ticket pricing philosophy is simple. They think they are going to make more money that way.

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:It seems like bigger-ticket items are coming into play more and more as the game ages. That could be due to the possibility that a lot of players already have the non-cosmetic gem items they want, so sales of things like character slots, bags, bank slots, etc. may not be generating the same level of revenue as when the game was young. If staple items are generating less revenue, then other items would need to step up.

It's because the game is increasingly relying on whales to keep the coffers full as more and more regular MMO players drift away and leave behind people who stand in town or farm (fotm gold maker) while watching netflix for hours a day.

One group picks a look and sticks with it and the other just buys gems with gold. Neither is that sweet spot of player who plays the game because they genuinly love the mechanics and either don't mind RMT'ing gems or simply don't play enough to have the gold to buy them.

Anet embracing BLC as a way to literally gamble for exclusive account bound skins was them fully committing to this reality. Gambling for mounts that cost $20 to directly buy was just a continuation.

@"IndigoSundown.5419" said:~snip~

Anyway, to return the thread topic, the answer to why ANet uses the big-ticket pricing philosophy is simple. They think they are going to make more money that way.

Close, but no dice, ArenaNet doesn't "think" they'll make more money this way, they know they'll make more money this way. They've had 6 years of sales to develop a model that tells them how much revenue they earn based on different items price points, at this point it's no longer a guessing game.

Really wish this time they would have let you buy the skins individually for 400 Gems each. Surprised that this is the only bundle of mount skins that aren't sold at a perpetual discount!

@Eloc Freidon.5692 said:Really wish this time they would have let you buy the skins individually for 400 Gems each.

They will never sell MountFits at a retail price of 400 gems for a specific skin.

• 400 is the cost of a random MountFit (from a set of 15 or 30) and the average cost of a bundled MountFit. (240 is sometimes the discount price)
• 1200 for a specific MountFit within a set. (760 is sometimes the discount price)
• 2000 for a premium MountFit. (1600 is sometimes the introductory price and the typical discount price later)

I don't have a problem with it..

The first round of mount skins were a little excessive tbh.. took me a good while to get the skins I wanted as I was buying between 2-4 skins a month.The newer packs have been far more friendly imo as their overall mount number is significantly lower thus I am far more likely to get the skins I want thus overall I spend less money on them.

I don't have a problem with the Warclaw pack though since I like all the skins and will use them all on various characters.What I do have a problem with are the 2000 gem deluxe skins which are absurdly overpriced imo and in no way justifyable.

@Vayne.8563 said:It's too easy to farm gold in this game and there are quite a number of people in my guild who never spend a dollar on gems, because they farm gold to convert.

And people wonder why Istan got nerfed? Um, hello? Yeah, this is why.

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Eloc Freidon.5692 said:Really wish this time they would have let you buy the skins individually for 400 Gems each.

They will never sell MountFits at a retail price of 400 gems for a specific skin.

• 400 is the cost of a random MountFit (from a set of 15 or 30) and the average cost of a bundled MountFit. (240 is sometimes the discount price)
• 1200 for a specific MountFit within a set. (760 is sometimes the discount price)
• 2000 for a premium MountFit. (1600 is sometimes the introductory price and the typical discount price later)

Just because they've committed to an idea doesn't make it a good one.

Do you believe the skin is worth 2k gems on it's own?If yes, then no problem! You get your money's worth and some extra stuff on the side.If not, then don't buy it. You didn't need it anyway, and you still have your money.

@Substance E.4852 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Eloc Freidon.5692 said:Really wish this time they would have let you buy the skins individually for 400 Gems each.

They will never sell MountFits at a retail price of 400 gems for a specific skin.

• 400 is the cost of a random MountFit (from a set of 15 or 30) and the average cost of a bundled MountFit. (240 is sometimes the discount price)
• 1200 for a specific MountFit within a set. (760 is sometimes the discount price)
• 2000 for a premium MountFit. (1600 is sometimes the introductory price and the typical discount price later)

We haven't established that it's a bad idea. There's plenty of evidence that some people don't like it and ANet claims to have plenty of data to show that this pricing policy earns more money for them than selling (character) outfits for 800 gems retail.

So (a) it's a good idea for the long-term health of the company that produces the game, thus (b) allowing most of us to play without spending any real world cash at all, even though © it rubs some of us the wrong way.

To all the comments about the gem conversion meaning they don't make money, I thought that in order for players to purchase gems for gold another player had to sell gems to the exchange for gold. Wouldn't the transaction fee's would mean that purchasing an item through gold should earn them more money than if it was just purchased straight with gems. Is that not the way that the gem exchange works?

To comment on the subject of the thread though, there is only 1 skin that I really want for the warclaw, I also feel same as the OP in that I don't want to buy the bundle to get all of the other skins that I dislike. I would gladly pay 1000 or even 1500 gems for just the single skin that I want though. Might be strange, but I just don't like buying things that I have no intention of using:P