WvW Mount Skins: why a pack? - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

WvW Mount Skins: why a pack?

2

Comments

  • Turkeyspit.3965Turkeyspit.3965 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    You can dye 3 parts of the armour and the fur

    @XenesisII.1540 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    They are some cool skins albeit 2 are a bit samey. I can this one being made into Battle Cat a lot though

    Can you dye the skin green and armor orange to get a scuffed battlecat look?

    Is it just me, or from that angle doesn't it look like you're riding a hyena?

  • Hybarf Tics.2048Hybarf Tics.2048 Member ✭✭✭

    People are fed up of packs, flush me. Anet please flush me, I'm not taking my wallet out for this!!!
    I know Anet is allergic to this comment but here goes, 1 mount 1 payment not 3 and certainly not 5. :p

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Turkeyspit.3965 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    You can dye 3 parts of the armour and the fur

    @XenesisII.1540 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    They are some cool skins albeit 2 are a bit samey. I can this one being made into Battle Cat a lot though

    Can you dye the skin green and armor orange to get a scuffed battlecat look?

    Is it just me, or from that angle doesn't it look like you're riding a hyena?

    Yeah. I'll replace it with a better one later

    What sleep is here? What dreams there are in the unctuous coiling of the snakes mortal shuffling. weapon in my hand. My hand the arcing deathblow at the end of all things. The horror. The horror. I embrace it. . .

  • Hybarf Tics.2048Hybarf Tics.2048 Member ✭✭✭

    @Ashantara.8731 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    They are some cool skins albeit 2 are a bit samey. I can this one being made into Battle Cat a lot though

    I only like that one. Bummer. Oh well, it's fine, no money from me then. ;)

    You got that right I would have bought the cat, Anet you're so greedyly lame. :s

  • Skotlex.7580Skotlex.7580 Member ✭✭✭

    On the upside, the less people who buy these skins, the less cluttered it'll be in the game.

    ANet probably knows very well the price point that brings them the most profit. And why not? These are just visual packs, nothing gamechanging.

    If somebody really wants to stand out from the crowd, then I am fine with them spending luxuriously to do so.

  • I didn’t buy the mount pack. I wasn’t thrilled by two of the mounts being almost identical. However the main deal breaker is that I’m a PvE player and not only does the mount have no real use in PvE, it’s not even as fast as the Raptor or Jackal.

    Be careful what you ask for
    ANet might give it to you.

    Forum Guides: Images. Text

  • MithranArkanere.8957MithranArkanere.8957 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Turkeyspit.3965 said:

    @MithranArkanere.8957 said:
    Because what they want to encourage is people buying gems, not just exchanging gold for them.

    The choices are saving gems slowly, or spending a bit of cash.

    Er..the only way anyone can buy gems with gold is if another players buys gems with $$$ and sells them for gold. Both = $$$ in ANET's pocket. There are still gems available for gold, the price has jumped a bit, which also means people will get more gold for the $$$ they spend buying gems.

    The issue is the amount of gems. I didn't pay 2000 gems for the Shrine Guardian Mount skin because even though it was awesome, it was 1 skin for the Jackal which I hardly use. Now they ask 2000 gems for 6 skins for 1 mount that, comparatively speaking, I hardly use. Still a flat 'no' for me.

    It's not completely like that. While the conversion rate is affected by supply and demand, it isn't a direct stock like the trading post. There won't be a point in which there's no gold to trade if no one buys gems.
    It also prevents people fiddling with the system and depleting stocks by buying or selling too much.

  • Ben K.6238Ben K.6238 Member ✭✭✭

    I was expecting 2000 gems for the Outrider skin anyway, so I'm more than happy to get another four skins as well for that price. I'll probably just use the one though.

  • hugo.4705hugo.4705 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 12, 2019

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Naxos.2503 said:
    To be honest, I was a bit sad to see how quickly it seemed like that they jumped to monetize this. I mean, sure, everyone saw it coming, but still, darn. Could have spared our feelings a bit there Anet, I'd not have raised a concern if it had been another Week or so from now, but in this particular case, I really feel like we're getting milked, as "justified" as you may be for trying to recoup your losses, that's hardly the customer's fault.

    It is -NOT- a pleasant feeling. Loss of respect from me on that point.

    Why are you shocked? Not knocking Anet here, but you were in the WvW forums where people were stating it was simply to monetize the mount. (Via skins)

    @Ashen.2907 said:
    When the question, "why do they...?" is asked, the answer is almost always, "money."

    Exactly. (Which we get to ‘vote’ on by buying them or not buying them. Which is better than the ‘vote’ to include them in WvW.)

    Monetize away.

    @hugo.4705 said:
    Very disapointed.... wasn't very fan of the kitty but the fact that is a pack totally erase my envy to buy it some skin. I'm only interested by the outrider one (even if I kinda force myself) nah will let that thing pass, don't want to spend some hardly accumulated gems into something I don't have any use for. Nice try.

    As ‘not a fan of the kitty’ I hope you mean the skin, as you’ve been a staunch supporter of the mount being added.

    Yeah the skin of course, should have put another word. The base skin is okay ^^ but since half of the pack skins are just the same with additional dye channels / recolor mwelp. I like the mount but I wouldn't say I supported its introduction in WvW. But I do appreciate the animation, and the outrider skin. Edited the comment.

  • Burnfall.9573Burnfall.9573 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Endless Soul.5178 said:
    I think I'll just stick with the default skin for now. It looks great anyways.

  • Loosmaster.8263Loosmaster.8263 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Just a flesh wound.3589 said:
    I didn’t buy the mount pack. I wasn’t thrilled by two of the mounts being almost identical. However the main deal breaker is that I’m a PvE player and not only does the mount have no real use in PvE, it’s not even as fast as the Raptor or Jackal.

    Can I steal your sig? I wanted to tag you so many times in the WvW forum for it, lol.

    Fàther - Create a mount then kill it until it's more useless than PvE. "Smart"
    Tactical Killers
    Server(DR)

  • HazyDaisy.4107HazyDaisy.4107 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I like that there are 5 skins, wvw doesn't see much variety in builds, but dangit it can have variety in mount skins and colors! I am wondering about the wvw guilds that all dress the same though :), are we going to see g kicks because someone dyed their mount electro green?

    [HaHa] Hazardous Hallucination - Sorrows Furnace

  • HazyDaisy.4107HazyDaisy.4107 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ben K.6238 said:
    I was expecting 2000 gems for the Outrider skin anyway, so I'm more than happy to get another four skins as well for that price. I'll probably just use the one though.

    Big SWEETIE!

    [HaHa] Hazardous Hallucination - Sorrows Furnace

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

    @Ashantara.8731 said:

    @Ashen.2907 said:
    When the question, "why do they...?" is asked, the answer is almost always, "money."

    How is that a smart way to make money? People will rather not buy now than waste Gems on skins they consider ugly.

    It doesn't necessarily have to be a smart way to make money, ANet just has to think they'll get more money this way. Since they have more sales data than we do, they could even be right despite player beliefs to the contrary. When the first mount skins hit (1 for 2k, randoms for 400), ANet said that individual low-priced skins don't produce revenue the way that big ticket single items or bundles do. This even makes sense in a way, as cosmetics are going to be hit or miss for people. Price a skin at 400 and you need to sell 5 to make up for every player who would have been willing to pay 2K. If there are not enough who'd be willing to pay 400, then the opportunity cost would be too high.

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

  • Hybarf Tics.2048Hybarf Tics.2048 Member ✭✭✭

    OP your question is all wrong, mine would be, why 4 identical re-skinned job and only one truly original? Total unimaginative rip-off. :o

  • Ashen.2907Ashen.2907 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Ashantara.8731 said:

    @Astralporing.1957 said:

    @Ashantara.8731 said:
    :'( I was hoping for seperate skins, as I am only interested in one. Why did ANet decide to make it a pack?

    Exactly because of that. They want people to also buy the skins they aren't interested in.

    Yes, obviously. My question was why? I'd rather spend around 1,000 Gems on one skin that I like than 2,000 on all five (that mostly look awful to me).

    @Endless Soul.5178 said:
    I think I'll just stick with the default skin for now. It looks great anyways.

    Ditto.

    @Ashen.2907 said:
    When the question, "why do they...?" is asked, the answer is almost always, "money."

    How is that a smart way to make money? People will rather not buy now than waste Gems on skins they consider ugly.

    And yet the only people with access to sales data trends have decided to bundle the skins.

    Bundling highly desirable items with those that are less so is a proven, across multiple industries, way of increasing revenue. The skin that you like is someone else's ugly, and your ugly skin is someone else's desirable. Bundling this way targets both you and that someone else.

  • Erasculio.2914Erasculio.2914 Member ✭✭✭

    @Ashantara.8731 said:
    How is that a smart way to make money? People will rather not buy now than waste Gems on skins they consider ugly.

    Keep in mind that most of ArenaNet's strategy with the mount skins consist on hoping people will buy stuff they may not want:

    • The full mount packs: people could only buy those skins for the five mounts together. Even if someone did not want the Springer or the Skimmer skins, sorry - it was all or nothing.

    • The random licenses: if you only wanted one skin, ArenaNet was encouraging you to keep buying the random skins until you got the one you wanted.

    So it's not surprising that they expect the same to happen now - that people would be willing to buy stuff they don't want in order to also get the skin they want.

    How about some anti eyes bleeding options? Here's the direct link to the concept.

  • Hybarf Tics.2048Hybarf Tics.2048 Member ✭✭✭

    @Ben K.6238 said:
    I was expecting 2000 gems for the Outrider skin anyway, so I'm more than happy to get another four skins as well for that price. I'll probably just use the one though.

    That being said those 4 skin jobs Anet pulled on you are identical in every way, they simply came out the paint shop $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ differently $$$$$$$$$. :o

  • I had some gems, converted some gold to gems, and bought the pack. I wvw numerous hours a week, though, so it's worth it to me being able to see the mount the way I want.

    I don't consider items in the Gem Store to be rip-offs. Lots are cosmetic (skins) and some have utility (permanent gathering tools, bank/character/material slots). But you can happily play the game having purchased absolutely nothing from the Gem Store.

    It's not like the Gem Store prices are hidden, or the gold-to-gems conversion rate is hidden.

    The definition of rip-off being used here seems to be "I don't want to pay this price for this item." Given that the item is not being misadvertised, nothing in the Gem Store meets the definition of an actual rip-off.

  • Leo G.4501Leo G.4501 Member ✭✭✭✭

    At the end of the day, despite how disappointed you are, you'll find some way to get the gems for them. You wouldn't have bothered to get the mount if you weren't.

  • Leo G.4501Leo G.4501 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @MithranArkanere.8957 said:

    @Turkeyspit.3965 said:

    @MithranArkanere.8957 said:
    Because what they want to encourage is people buying gems, not just exchanging gold for them.

    The choices are saving gems slowly, or spending a bit of cash.

    Er..the only way anyone can buy gems with gold is if another players buys gems with $$$ and sells them for gold. Both = $$$ in ANET's pocket. There are still gems available for gold, the price has jumped a bit, which also means people will get more gold for the $$$ they spend buying gems.

    The issue is the amount of gems. I didn't pay 2000 gems for the Shrine Guardian Mount skin because even though it was awesome, it was 1 skin for the Jackal which I hardly use. Now they ask 2000 gems for 6 skins for 1 mount that, comparatively speaking, I hardly use. Still a flat 'no' for me.

    It's not completely like that. While the conversion rate is affected by supply and demand, it isn't a direct stock like the trading post. There won't be a point in which there's no gold to trade if no one buys gems.
    It also prevents people fiddling with the system and depleting stocks by buying or selling too much.

    As far as supply goes, the reason that it practically is a straight conversion is because there are people that want that gold. Consider that, near the game's launch, there were players stockpiling hundreds of gems at the cost of a pittance of gold (like 4 gold for 100 gems). A couple years after launch, there were players probably five-digit gems just sitting there collecting dust because they hit the cap in gold and needed something that held value.

    There won't be a point where there's no gold because the game infinitely generates gold. When you see the conversion rate to gems becoming 15 gold for 100 gems, there might be a shortage but that just won't ever happen lol. It's a good thing though. It's a direct attack against gold-sellers while also allowing a sink for gold to help counter inflation.

  • Leo G.4501Leo G.4501 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Hesione.9412 said:
    I had some gems, converted some gold to gems, and bought the pack. I wvw numerous hours a week, though, so it's worth it to me being able to see the mount the way I want.

    I don't consider items in the Gem Store to be rip-offs. Lots are cosmetic (skins) and some have utility (permanent gathering tools, bank/character/material slots). But you can happily play the game having purchased absolutely nothing from the Gem Store.

    It's not like the Gem Store prices are hidden, or the gold-to-gems conversion rate is hidden.

    The definition of rip-off being used here seems to be "I don't want to pay this price for this item." Given that the item is not being misadvertised, nothing in the Gem Store meets the definition of an actual rip-off.

    Spot on!

    I like the way you think. Next, people will say it's predatory in some nature. 's cool. We understand that this is the player's way of saying "I want it! But I want to haggle for it!" Just wait a few months or a year. There will be a sale and you'll be rewarded for your haggling skills.

  • Leo G.4501Leo G.4501 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Hybarf Tics.2048 said:

    @Ben K.6238 said:
    I was expecting 2000 gems for the Outrider skin anyway, so I'm more than happy to get another four skins as well for that price. I'll probably just use the one though.

    That being said those 4 skin jobs Anet pulled on you are identical in every way, they simply came out the paint shop $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ differently $$$$$$$$$. :o

    U just mad you fell outta the fashion-wars meta.

  • This was an easy buy for me. There is enough variety that I won't buy anymore skins for my Warclaw unless there is something I really, really, like. And the Vanguard skin matches my character that wears the Lunatic Templar Armor. I'll use the skins enough in WvW that it is worth it.

  • Tekoneiric.6817Tekoneiric.6817 Member ✭✭✭✭

    What they should have done is released the first skins as a two pack for warclaw and roller beetle with the skins missing from the other packs. Like branded ones first, then slowly release the other pack skins like spooky, winter, etc. I think it would have been worth 1000 gems for the two.

  • finkle.9513finkle.9513 Member ✭✭✭

    seen as the warclaw mount is literally only good for wvw, and nobody plays wvw... go check it now que time is gone, its quite in game now most have got the mount lol.
    Would have been better fixing/ improving and reworking the whole of wvw, before trying to make money off its back, to me just a false economy.

  • Keefe.3821Keefe.3821 Member ✭✭

    I actually bought gems in anticipation of the skins but there is no way I'm buying more gems for some half assed pack. Anet, stop being so kitten greedy.

  • Keefe.3821Keefe.3821 Member ✭✭

    @finkle.9513 said:
    seen as the warclaw mount is literally only good for wvw, and nobody plays wvw... go check it now que time is gone, its quite in game now most have got the mount lol.
    Would have been better fixing/ improving and reworking the whole of wvw, before trying to make money off its back, to me just a false economy.

    Not sure what server you're on but mine has ques in multiple borderlands all the time. Also, you can use the warclaw mount outside of wvw.

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

    Having seen the fire skin in-game and dyed I'm now re-thinking the pack. I've not been a fan of any of the previous fire mount skins but this one is less...dramatic, and with the right dyes I think it can look good. I'm still not sure I'd use it, which is why I'm still not getting the pack, but if I decide I will use it that would make it worthwhile to buy them, because then I'd use 3/5.

    "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."

  • Turkeyspit.3965Turkeyspit.3965 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Keefe.3821 said:
    I actually bought gems in anticipation of the skins but there is no way I'm buying more gems for some half assed pack. Anet, stop being so kitten greedy.

    Just like all the other mount packs, this one will eventually come back on sale for 1600gems. Maybe by then if I've squirrelled away enough gems that I don't need, I'll take the plunge. For now, I'd rather buy more character slots and shared inventory slots with my resources.

  • kratan.4619kratan.4619 Member ✭✭

    Thank you Anet for a pack of non-RNG skins, will be purchasing this pack tonight.

  • Randulf.7614Randulf.7614 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Danikat.8537 said:
    Having seen the fire skin in-game and dyed I'm now re-thinking the pack. I've not been a fan of any of the previous fire mount skins but this one is less...dramatic, and with the right dyes I think it can look good. I'm still not sure I'd use it, which is why I'm still not getting the pack, but if I decide I will use it that would make it worthwhile to buy them, because then I'd use 3/5.

    I've found it quite tough to dye actually. The metal plating rarely matches what dye you use and largely stays some kind of grey and the flames, well sometimes they dye well and sometimes yellow or orange is green...

    What sleep is here? What dreams there are in the unctuous coiling of the snakes mortal shuffling. weapon in my hand. My hand the arcing deathblow at the end of all things. The horror. The horror. I embrace it. . .

  • I like a few (see, 2) of the skins, but not enough to shell out 2k gems - yet. Will see what future offerings bring, patience is a virtue and all that.

  • Absconditus.6804Absconditus.6804 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 17, 2019

    Super disappointed in most of the skins, and even more in ArenaNet for releasing them solely as a bundle instead of giving us the option to buy the pack for 2000 Gems to get a "good deal" or to pay, e.g., 600 Gems for one skin, basically totaling the value of the 5 skins to 3000 gems. It would have created perceived value for the pack which may appeal to bigger (and smaller) spenders, and the smaller spenders would have had an easier to swallow price to buy into. To me, it's an easy skip in its current release and I've spent my fair share of money on this game over the years.

    Personally, I'd probably buy one or two at a 600 Gems price point, as I don't want most of these skins, plus they're only for one single mount. Obviously, you get less money out of me if I purchase one or two skins over the bundle, but when I'm not buying the bundle either, you're getting no sales where you could have had some. Also, I'm sure some people would convert Gold to Gems, which isn't directly profits, but that drives Gems to Gold prices up too, making it appealing for people to get Gems to convert to Gold as well, so it's not all bad when people convert their Gold to get Gem Store items, right? Evidently from this very topic, on the other side of the spectrum there are also people who will buy the pack because they can't buy the specific skin they want, but how many are there that will do that, over how many there are that are now not engaging in any transactions, which would otherwise have at least picked up one skin? Those who bought the bundle thus far would have been highly likely to at least purchase one skin, if not more or the entire bundle due to the perceived value of saving 1000 Gems in the example of 600 Gems for one skin, 2000 Gems for all. There's practically no way for anyone to realistically get that data unless you can time travel and re-do the same exact same release twice in two different ways. You can do projections and look at past sales data, but that is not this current sales offering. It's also a bit different than past sales offerings, as it's new skins for a new mount for a mode which has so far not really been dipped into for monetized content the same way say PvE has been.

    As I see it, I can't exactly use 5 skins at once, so to me, it's terrible value. I also find it to be a terrible business decision by ArenaNet's team, regardless of what data trends they sit on. It's terrible for us consumers, as it can- and is seen as unfriendly gauging of their players which creates resentment, bad word-of-mouth marketing and can hurt a customers willingness to engage in transactions in the future (and not acknowledging that this effect can grow within your customers is only thinking short-term sales and not long-term growth gains from positively pleased customers which will be more and more willing to open their wallets rather than the opposite). I can't imagine this bundle selling well. I barely see people without the default Warclaw. Maybe I'm wrong on the latter. Why do you have to make it so hard to financially support you a little bit here and there though, ArenaNet? Why does everything need to be big purchases? Guild Wars 2 is very much Fashion Wars 2. Skins are a big deal, far more than chairs.

    Seafarer's Rest | Enryon | Mistwarden [Hero]

  • I keep wondering how long people will voice the same complaint before Anet pays attention and realizes that if they gave us a better deal they would sell a lot more skins and make more money. There are so many people that really want one or two skins but refuse to spend money on ones that they don't want just to get the one or two that they want.

    How about it Anet, are you going to finally figure out that you are costing yourselves sales and therefore not making any where near the money that you could?

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

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    @Danikat.8537 said:
    Having seen the fire skin in-game and dyed I'm now re-thinking the pack. I've not been a fan of any of the previous fire mount skins but this one is less...dramatic, and with the right dyes I think it can look good. I'm still not sure I'd use it, which is why I'm still not getting the pack, but if I decide I will use it that would make it worthwhile to buy them, because then I'd use 3/5.

    I've found it quite tough to dye actually. The metal plating rarely matches what dye you use and largely stays some kind of grey and the flames, well sometimes they dye well and sometimes yellow or orange is green...

    Ah ok. That's good for me to know. I've seen a few in-game which looked good, but if there's only a few dye schemes which will work (and they may not fit with my characters colour schemes) it's back to not being useful for me.

    "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."

  • Deimos.4263Deimos.4263 Member ✭✭✭

    I think the way to rationalize this for 2000 gems is if you consider one of the skins to be a "premium" mount skin, and the rest as freebies. Is that the case here? Debatable. I'm taking a pass on this one.

  • Miko.4158Miko.4158 Member ✭✭✭

    I'd have blind bagged one just to make a change, but the skins aren't good enough to buy separately, wheres the 2K giant peacock?
    the last 2 look the same.
    which makes the pack abit of a swindle.
    looks a bit last gasp and doesn't match the way the others have been sold.
    I don't think this was a great plan by anet and I was happy to pump 800 gold to them as they are skint.

  • Memoranda.9386Memoranda.9386 Member ✭✭✭

    @Naxos.2503 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Naxos.2503 said:
    To be honest, I was a bit sad to see how quickly it seemed like that they jumped to monetize this. I mean, sure, everyone saw it coming, but still, darn. Could have spared our feelings a bit there Anet, I'd not have raised a concern if it had been another Week or so from now, but in this particular case, I really feel like we're getting milked, as "justified" as you may be for trying to recoup your losses, that's hardly the customer's fault.

    It is -NOT- a pleasant feeling. Loss of respect from me on that point.

    Why are you shocked? Not knocking Anet here, but you were in the WvW forums where people were stating it was simply to monetize the mount. (Via skins)

    It's not exactly shock, as I mentionned, everyone saw it coming. What I find disturbing is how -fast- they got on to it, exactly a Week after release. It feels mechanical, and completely self serving, which I find extremely disappointing and cold. It's all in the execution and timing, and that's not hard to think about from a marketing and Community perspective. They're passing off as particularly cold and calculating with that choice.

    Not to you specifically, however, given development lead times the skins were made the same time as the Warclaw itself.

    All the mounts were released this way. There was no "rush" to monetize the mount when this has been standard from day 1 of mounts existing.

    Further, this was all planned out before the lay-offs were announced, again, due to development lead times and release schedules.

    Sure the optics "look bad", I suppose, but only if you choose to view it as such and not in the grand scheme of development and release cycles planned months ahead of time.

  • Substance E.4852Substance E.4852 Member ✭✭✭

    @Turkeyspit.3965 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    You can dye 3 parts of the armour and the fur

    @XenesisII.1540 said:

    @Randulf.7614 said:

    They are some cool skins albeit 2 are a bit samey. I can this one being made into Battle Cat a lot though

    Can you dye the skin green and armor orange to get a scuffed battlecat look?

    Is it just me, or from that angle doesn't it look like you're riding a hyena?

    Nah it's not just you, it's a genuinely bad mount. They gave it too small a head for the mesh so the neck needs to be much too long for a cat and it just ends up looking really weird.

  • @Naxos.2503 said:
    To be honest, I was a bit sad to see how quickly it seemed like that they jumped to monetize this. I mean, sure, everyone saw it coming, but still, darn. Could have spared our feelings a bit there Anet, I'd not have raised a concern if it had been another Week or so from now, but in this particular case, I really feel like we're getting milked, as "justified" as you may be for trying to recoup your losses, that's hardly the customer's fault.

    @Loosmaster.8263 said:
    We all knew from the WvW this was just another money grab.

    You both seem very unhappy with this mount pack and desire for Anet to do something differently Yet, calling something a "money grab" and being "milked" are two indirect and only slightly veiled ways of accusing Anet of being unethical in their business practices, and unethical business practices are enacted by unethical people. Perhaps that is how you genuinely feel about them. I personally have not met a single person employed by Anet so I cannot comment on their characters, but I prefer to take a more optimistic view until I meet someone and discover otherwise. But at least in my own experience, insulting people is an ineffective way to motivate them to change in ways I might consider positive.

    "I don't like it, you hurt my feelings" while legitimate opinions, are unhelpful in pointing them in a direction you believe to be a better direction. Might I suggest a more reasoned and thought out approach to disagreeing with Anet and this particular product?

    I don't know where either of you may be from, so some of this may well be redundant and unnecessary, but for some this may be new information. Within the US, where Anet's studios are located, businesses fall into two classifications: NonProfit Organizations (Often called NPOs) and for profit businesses. Both must acquire money in order to continue to operate. The advantage to an NPO is that often its overhead (the overall cost of doing business) is low and they only need to make enough revenue to meet their expenses and achieve their purposes. However Anet is a for profit business which means their very business model is for the purpose of making profit. You may have ethical objections to businesses in this classification, but that is a much larger topic for perhaps a different venue. Whether you do have issues with this model, or do not, the situation is such that Anet works within this business model, so they need to make revenue.

    Right now that revenue can broadly be broken again into two categories: High Price single purchases (i.e. expansions) and lower priced smaller products intended for more frequent purchases (i.e. gem store products). Anet does not have a third revenue stream. Since at the moment they do not have any expansions to release immediately, their business depends upon enough gemstone sales to continue to operate. As recent events have shown us, gem store sales have been insufficient for them to continue operations as they have been, which ultimately led to the large layoffs a few weeks ago. Again there are many opinions on what different contributing factors brought them to that point, but in a basic, uncomplicated sense, it was a lack of income to expense ratio. You may personally support the game with buying expansions, gems, both or neither, but regardless, if Anet is unable to change that income to expense ratio sufficiently, the game that we all play will come to its end sooner than later.

    Releasing the warclaw and skins does indeed provide another opportunity for players to spend cash on gems either to buy the pack or to buy gold allowing others to buy the pack with gold to gems conversions. Quite a few here have expressed concerns about the pricing/value of this particular product and their suggestions on what they believe to be a more reasonable pricing model may be helpful to Anet to help them assess the value that the community puts onto this recent release.

    Since you seem to not like something or maybe even anything about this product, perhaps you might consider suggesting other products or ways that you believe to be viable, ethical approaches for Anet to continue making sufficient profit that we can continue playing and enjoying this game.

    TLDR: being respectful and making well reasoned suggestions may do more for getting changes you want.

    Cheers!

  • Loosmaster.8263Loosmaster.8263 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Moira Shalaar.5620 said:

    @Naxos.2503 said:
    To be honest, I was a bit sad to see how quickly it seemed like that they jumped to monetize this. I mean, sure, everyone saw it coming, but still, darn. Could have spared our feelings a bit there Anet, I'd not have raised a concern if it had been another Week or so from now, but in this particular case, I really feel like we're getting milked, as "justified" as you may be for trying to recoup your losses, that's hardly the customer's fault.

    @Loosmaster.8263 said:
    We all knew from the WvW this was just another money grab.

    You both seem very unhappy with this mount pack and desire for Anet to do something differently Yet, calling something a "money grab" and being "milked" are two indirect and only slightly veiled ways of accusing Anet of being unethical in their business practices, and unethical business practices are enacted by unethical people. Perhaps that is how you genuinely feel about them. I personally have not met a single person employed by Anet so I cannot comment on their characters, but I prefer to take a more optimistic view until I meet someone and discover otherwise. But at least in my own experience, insulting people is an ineffective way to motivate them to change in ways I might consider positive.

    "I don't like it, you hurt my feelings" while legitimate opinions, are unhelpful in pointing them in a direction you believe to be a better direction. Might I suggest a more reasoned and thought out approach to disagreeing with Anet and this particular product?

    I don't know where either of you may be from, so some of this may well be redundant and unnecessary, but for some this may be new information. Within the US, where Anet's studios are located, businesses fall into two classifications: NonProfit Organizations (Often called NPOs) and for profit businesses. Both must acquire money in order to continue to operate. The advantage to an NPO is that often its overhead (the overall cost of doing business) is low and they only need to make enough revenue to meet their expenses and achieve their purposes. However Anet is a for profit business which means their very business model is for the purpose of making profit. You may have ethical objections to businesses in this classification, but that is a much larger topic for perhaps a different venue. Whether you do have issues with this model, or do not, the situation is such that Anet works within this business model, so they need to make revenue.

    Right now that revenue can broadly be broken again into two categories: High Price single purchases (i.e. expansions) and lower priced smaller products intended for more frequent purchases (i.e. gem store products). Anet does not have a third revenue stream. Since at the moment they do not have any expansions to release immediately, their business depends upon enough gemstone sales to continue to operate. As recent events have shown us, gem store sales have been insufficient for them to continue operations as they have been, which ultimately led to the large layoffs a few weeks ago. Again there are many opinions on what different contributing factors brought them to that point, but in a basic, uncomplicated sense, it was a lack of income to expense ratio. You may personally support the game with buying expansions, gems, both or neither, but regardless, if Anet is unable to change that income to expense ratio sufficiently, the game that we all play will come to its end sooner than later.

    Releasing the warclaw and skins does indeed provide another opportunity for players to spend cash on gems either to buy the pack or to buy gold allowing others to buy the pack with gold to gems conversions. Quite a few here have expressed concerns about the pricing/value of this particular product and their suggestions on what they believe to be a more reasonable pricing model may be helpful to Anet to help them assess the value that the community puts onto this recent release.

    Since you seem to not like something or maybe even anything about this product, perhaps you might consider suggesting other products or ways that you believe to be viable, ethical approaches for Anet to continue making sufficient profit that we can continue playing and enjoying this game.

    TLDR: being respectful and making well reasoned suggestions may do more for getting changes you want.

    Cheers!

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/categories/wvw I emplore you to read this entire subforum on recommendations and you might see where the "hate" comes from...

    Fàther - Create a mount then kill it until it's more useless than PvE. "Smart"
    Tactical Killers
    Server(DR)

  • @Loosmaster.8263 said:
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/categories/wvw I emplore you to read this entire subforum on recommendations and you might see where the "hate" comes from...

    I am quite familiar with that sub-forum and have read several of the threads but by no means all, nor do I have the time to invest in reading every single comment. That does not change a single thing in what I said. Anet needs to make a profit. If you don't like the pack fine, take the time to make productive suggestions rather than simply calling the company greedy.

  • Susy.7529Susy.7529 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 13, 2019

    You ask "why"? It's pretty obvious to me...,$€¥£

  • Naxos.2503Naxos.2503 Member ✭✭✭
    edited March 13, 2019

    @Moira Shalaar.5620 said:

    @Loosmaster.8263 said:
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/categories/wvw I emplore you to read this entire subforum on recommendations and you might see where the "hate" comes from...

    I am quite familiar with that sub-forum and have read several of the threads but by no means all, nor do I have the time to invest in reading every single comment. That does not change a single thing in what I said. Anet needs to make a profit. If you don't like the pack fine, take the time to make productive suggestions rather than simply calling the company greedy.

    Erm, No really, read my original post carefully, and you'll see that what I'm stating are my own take on their decision as well as giving a proper solution : Waiting another Week before going through the pack's release to minimize that type of feeling. I've been Nothing but honest and respectful in regard with what I said. It feels like "milking" because the desire to make money off a newly implemented feature was not disguised. I never told them Not to do it, I told them to do it with the impression it'll give their players in mind. I havent lambasted them for it, I've plainly stated that it was a cold and mechanical way to go about it, which is a fact. It's pragmatic. My reaction to it is that I Noticed how cold and mechanical that felt, and I thus it disappointed me, which I stated. There is no "attack" in this.

    A TL, DR version to my whole point would be : We knew it was going to happen, but it would have been nicer if it was not made obvious by how fast it was implemented.

  • Susy.7529Susy.7529 Member ✭✭✭

    @Danikat.8537 said:
    I'm disappointed in this too. I'd buy two of them (one plain one and then either the branded or fire skin), but I don't want 5 and I don't want to pay 1,000 gems per skin.

    As a result I'm going to wait and see if the next adoption licence pack includes warclaw skins (and then wait for it to go on sale because I don't buy select licences at full price either).

    Well according to previous prices (1200 gems for a Selected License), that would have costed more (1200*2=2400>2000).

  • slpr.2647slpr.2647 Member ✭✭

    Only skin I'm going to buy, will be if they come out with a Siberian/Bengal Tiger, a decent looking one. And if they do, I dont care how much it costs. Until then, I'm happy with the default skin

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

    @Susy.7529 said:

    @Danikat.8537 said:
    I'm disappointed in this too. I'd buy two of them (one plain one and then either the branded or fire skin), but I don't want 5 and I don't want to pay 1,000 gems per skin.

    As a result I'm going to wait and see if the next adoption licence pack includes warclaw skins (and then wait for it to go on sale because I don't buy select licences at full price either).

    Well according to previous prices (1200 gems for a Selected License), that would have costed more (1200*2=2400>2000).

    And that's why I don't buy select licences at full price either. I've only ever bought them when they were reduced to 720 gems.

    "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."

  • @Naxos.2503 said:
    Erm, No really, read my original post carefully, and you'll see that what I'm stating are my own take on their decision as well as giving a proper solution : Waiting another Week before going through the pack's release to minimize that type of feeling. I've been Nothing but honest and respectful in regard with what I said. It feels like "milking" because the desire to make money off a newly implemented feature was not disguised. I never told them Not to do it, I told them to do it with the impression it'll give their players in mind. I havent lambasted them for it, I've plainly stated that it was a cold and mechanical way to go about it, which is a fact. It's pragmatic. My reaction to it is that I Noticed how cold and mechanical that felt, and I thus it disappointed me, which I stated. There is no "attack" in this.

    A TL, DR version to my whole point would be : We knew it was going to happen, but it would have been nicer if it was not made obvious by how fast it was implemented.

    Perhaps I was incorrect then to include you with the person that quoted you and replied to you. Please help me to understand a few things then.

    1. do you view the characterization "milking" to be other than unethical? If so, can you explain to me so that I can understand how your usage does not indicate unethical practices? If you do indeed view the characterization of "milking" as unethical, then once again you are indirectly declaring that Anet is unethical, how is that not an attack on their character either individually or collectively?
    2. How would you suggest that they "disguise" an intent to make money off a new feature? Each and every product they release on the gem store is for the express and explicit purpose of enticing us to spend our discretionary money with them instead of somewhere else. Or do you consider the additional week of waiting that you suggest would be sufficient to soften the wholly accurate impression that Anet is attempting to make money from us?

    I am not trying to be offensive to any, just to encourage a different approach to disagreeing with them.

  • Naxos.2503Naxos.2503 Member ✭✭✭

    @Moira Shalaar.5620 said:

    @Naxos.2503 said:
    Erm, No really, read my original post carefully, and you'll see that what I'm stating are my own take on their decision as well as giving a proper solution : Waiting another Week before going through the pack's release to minimize that type of feeling. I've been Nothing but honest and respectful in regard with what I said. It feels like "milking" because the desire to make money off a newly implemented feature was not disguised. I never told them Not to do it, I told them to do it with the impression it'll give their players in mind. I havent lambasted them for it, I've plainly stated that it was a cold and mechanical way to go about it, which is a fact. It's pragmatic. My reaction to it is that I Noticed how cold and mechanical that felt, and I thus it disappointed me, which I stated. There is no "attack" in this.

    A TL, DR version to my whole point would be : We knew it was going to happen, but it would have been nicer if it was not made obvious by how fast it was implemented.

    Perhaps I was incorrect then to include you with the person that quoted you and replied to you. Please help me to understand a few things then.

    1. do you view the characterization "milking" to be other than unethical? If so, can you explain to me so that I can understand how your usage does not indicate unethical practices? If you do indeed view the characterization of "milking" as unethical, then once again you are indirectly declaring that Anet is unethical, how is that not an attack on their character either individually or collectively?
    2. How would you suggest that they "disguise" an intent to make money off a new feature? Each and every product they release on the gem store is for the express and explicit purpose of enticing us to spend our discretionary money with them instead of somewhere else. Or do you consider the additional week of waiting that you suggest would be sufficient to soften the wholly accurate impression that Anet is attempting to make money from us?

    I am not trying to be offensive to any, just to encourage a different approach to disagreeing with them.

    Sure, I can explain how I use the term,

    On my point "milking" characterise a cold and calculated monetization of feature, either by it's implementation (Player needs) or by it's timing (depending on when it's implemented), in a way you could call it a very cynical way to make money. Anet is a business, it's Job is to make money, therefore it is not ethically wrong for them to proceed as such. On another hand, I find it is a marketing fault, because the timing carries a negative look. The pack was released immediately after the feature, which makes it plain the feature was implemented with the main purpose of being monetized. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, but players dont really like that : the whole history of mounts since the announcement of Path of Fire was marked with players assuming mounts were implemented with the sole Reason of making money, and it was interpreted cynically, thus the decision to release the skinpack so soon after the core mount will reinforce that feeling. It's a PR flaw, not an unethical practice. It reminds people of bad feelings.

    Indeed, all products are meant to be sold, but when a feature is released for free, it is best to nurture the desire for more, before attempting to sell an "upgrade". Had I been Anet, I would have waited just -1- extra Week, and I can guarantee there would have been threads asking for some new skins to be released, in which case, the pack's release carries far less negativity, it'll be interpreted mostly as answering a desire from the Community, which in my opinion is a much better PR move, as well as a better marketing move (since it doubles as Anet listening to player wishes and releasing their products accordingly). It cannot be done with all products of course, but in this particular case, it would have made sense, and would not have carried the same connotations : we're not privy to how long skins take to devellop, so two weeks could have been seen as a "post release content update". Instead if the skins are released too fast, it makes clear the development was concordant to the core feature, thus reinforcing the monetizing aspect. If I were to give it a pseudo similar example in the game industry, it would be games that release with day 1 DLCs, they're poorly regarded, because they're assumed to be cut content, specifically developped to be monetized. The concept of Cut Content dont exactly apply, but the negative connotation it carries does. I'm not sure the example is correctly applied, but I hope you'll understand what I mean by that. If I were to resume it, I'd say it's all a matter of timing. They released the pack too soon after releasing the core feature.

    I hope that gives you a better understanding of what I was trying to say

©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.