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

[Ashen.2907]

@Zania.8461 said:Bottom line is that I have seen maybe 1 peacock since LS4 release. I am sorry, but I believe that the majority of the population agrees that these are overpriced based on the fact that people aren't buying them. So any arguments brought up about the fact that these are not too expensive are well and good...but people aren't buying them. At some point ANet will need to make a decision of either lowering the price and having higher volume of sales or keep trying to sell small number of extremely expensive mounts.

On the same note, I don't think that spending $25 per mount for 5 mounts ($125) which were introduced in a $30 expansion is even remotely amusing. For all the "other games" you only use one mount. ANet introduced 5 and made at least 3 of them required in some areas.

I have not seen Idaho....so it doesnt exist?

[Oglaf.1074]

@Ashen.2907 said:

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

Two wrongs don't make a right.

No, but people willing to pay that amount industry wide establishes it as the fair market price...which is right.

Except that isn't true. Have you actually seen anyone using these mounts in-game? I sure as heck haven't. These prices are not meant to be fair to you and me: it is meant to prey on whales.

[Traveller.7496]

These are not excellent points

[Sonderm.4639]

@Ashen.2907 said:

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

Two wrongs don't make a right.

No, but people willing to pay that amount industry wide establishes it as the fair market price...which is right.

Fair market price? Last time I checked the Guild Wars 2 gem store is a monopoly since only ANet is allowed to sell items...

[Sonderm.4639]

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@Ashen.2907 said:

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

Two wrongs don't make a right.

No, but people willing to pay that amount industry wide establishes it as the fair market price...which is right.

Except that isn't true. Have you actually seen anyone using these mounts in-game? I sure as heck haven't. These prices are not meant to be fair to you and me: it is meant to prey on whales.

Unfortunately I see them a lot, it's not necessarily pretty :)

[Turial.1293]

They shot themselves in the foot long ago but this is the straw as they say. They are gonna lose plenty of cash and customers due to mountgate and while I absolutely adore this game, they deserve every consequence for their greed.

[Oglaf.1074]

@Turial.1293 said:They shot themselves in the foot long ago but this is the straw as they say. They are gonna lose plenty of cash and customers due to mountgate and while I absolutely adore this game, they deserve every consequence for their greed.

They will still make money. As I was saying, these type of prices are not aimed towards players like you and me. They are aimed towards so-called whales. The reason why the y are so overpriced is because they only ever counted on selling a very few of them. That's how freemium works, sadly.

[Malediktus.9250]

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

Two wrongs don't make a right.I agree. A mount skin should not cost half of a full new AAA game.

[DarcShriek.5829]

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@Ashen.2907 said:

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

Two wrongs don't make a right.

No, but people willing to pay that amount industry wide establishes it as the fair market price...which is right.

Except that isn't true. Have you actually seen anyone using these mounts in-game? I sure as heck haven't. These prices are not meant to be fair to you and me: it is meant to prey on whales.

I saw multiple players with resplendent skins on day one.

[Alatar.7364]

By setting the Mount at 2k will generate Anet less profit than if they set it at 1k, this pretty much eliminates the Entire post, because I would really love to see the One who would Braindead farm Silverwastes for enough Gold for 1k gems.

[notebene.3190]

This is a good read too. In broader terms.

[TheGrimm.5624]

@Healix.5819 said:

@TheGrimm.5624 said:do you have an example of other games where mounts are $25 (apart from WoW)? I'm honestly curious

They seem to be

$25-$30

in FFXIV for an account unlock or $13 for a character unlock.

$20-$25

in ESO, $10 for a simple a retexture.

$25

-

$30

in WoW.

I think you have a miss quote, that wasn't me but nottsgman. Was also going to use ESO as sample for mount prices after I checked what they were going with. Which range from 14-32 based on 750 gems conversion but without any options to convert in game coin to crowns.

[Sylvyn.4750]

@nottsgman.8206 said:

-$25 is the industry standard for MMO mounts. Even in games with larger player bases and a required subscription.do you have an example of other games where mounts are $25 (apart from WoW)? I'm honestly curious

In Mechwarrior Online, you can buy a Hero mech, probably in the heavy or assault class, for about that much. However, it is not just a reskin, it has a plethora of new weapons, and all Hero mechs offer a 30% bonus in-game currency reward. In MWO, you can't do anything without having a mech though, it is more like having a new character, as each weight class and even each mech in a particular weight class can have different abilities. Even if Anet made these mounts pretty AND offered 30% bonus on gold or magic find, there would still not be the equivalent value for $25 as there is in MWO. Now, having said that, once upon a time, MWO did sell $500 gold-plated mechs...a few people bought them, but they were instant targets whenever they popped up in game, so in the end, they were worthless.

[Matick.4132]

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@Oglaf.1074 said:

Here's how

NOT TO WITHER

stop insulting their player base. Not everyone is a fanboy, most of us are here becasue the game had a good standard of quality and fair prices on the gemstore. As soon as what draws people in ends, the game ends. So straying from the good practices and examples set in the past (even with some glaring exceptions - like most of what happened between HoT announcement and the start of LS3) is what will kill the game.

Also if this was a subscription model, the amount of content on the expansion would have most people ask for a refund. People tolerate expansions that trickle out of content in 2 weeks because we know we

ALSO

paid for Living World. In no way did the expansion warrant a 30€ price tag (or 80, if you bought Ultimate - like i did), just like 50€ was way too much for HoT. We can justify this because we know that there's more content coming for that price tag.

Also, you can see a ton of people saying they'd have bought the mounts for 800-1000 gems. Easily more than double the people that claim they've bought it. So basic maths... 2x 1000 = 2000, and they'd have made as much money (if not more) from selling it a bit cheaper.Even with all the crapstorm around the RNG you can't go to LA without seeing 5-10 guys with mounts from the Mount Adoption License. And yet, so far, i've seen less than 5 Warhounds total, not per visit to LA, and still haven't seen a Avialan Raptor. Which tells you exactly how popular those are, which is NOT MUCH.So they're actually making LESS money from trying to impose those prices as the standard for mounts, as they would be making if they sold them at what is standard for other similar items in the gemstore.

Finally, those of you who think that the BattleFront 2 players are your brothers-in-arms over matters like this should know that actually couldn't be further from the truth. They are fighting EA to get what we already have. Cosmetics in their cash shop. It's not the same thing at all.No, they're fighting EA for toxic and predatory practices in the micro-transactions.The whole micro-transactions model is a money-grab exploitative model, that has no buisness on a full-price game. It's justifiable in a game like GW2 because of Living world content.

Quick Clarification:

I'm not saying GW2 is in danger or that it's going anywhere. No matter what GW2 is successful enough to be around for years to come. This is in reference to just how much development resources it will get. Will ANet continue to make it their main focus or will the bulk of their team move on to something new? Mount skin sales is going to be in large part what determines that."No, that's an uninformed fanboy-ish tirade of falacious arguments and downright disinformation, which has no benefit for you

or the game

.

Now here's someone who didn't fell asleep in economy lessons! ^^Thanks for such a well toned comment on that topic.

[Ayumi Spender.1082]

@Healix.5819 said:

@TheGrimm.5624 said:do you have an example of other games where mounts are $25 (apart from WoW)? I'm honestly curious

They seem to be

$25-$30

in FFXIV for an account unlock or $13 for a character unlock.

$20-$25

in ESO, $10 for a simple a retexture.

$25

-

$30

in WoW.

$5 for a character unlock in PSO2.

[Sir Vincent III.1286]

@ProverbsofHell.2307 said:Now let's look at some alternatives:-ANet could get rid of the gold to gem conversions entirely. Then everyone has to pay real money for all gem store items. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

Everyone is already paying real money. The gems exist for conversion because someone else used them to purchase items from the gem store. There will be no gold-to-gem without anybody purchasing the gems with real money.

-ANet could put in an optional subscription that would slowly get more and more benefits over time as ANet became more and more dependent on it which would relegate non-subscribers to being second-class citizens. This would allow them to sell cheaper mount skins.

GW2 should have been subscription based from the beginning. I am not against this idea. Also, to remove the "second-class citizens" is to remove free-to-play. I am not a fan of "freemium" model, you either subscriptions base or you're free-to-play. Freemium is the reason I don't play the games that offer such model.

-ANet could charge money for every patch.-ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.

These are very bad ideas and should not be accepted and not valid solutions.

-ANet could drastically cut content updates and either fire a bunch of people or put them in a mobile game's division.

I doubt ArenaNet will even consider this option.

So my question to those of you who really want to buy a peacock raptor skin for $10... which of those solutions appeals to you? Because you have to pick one.

$10/month subscription. OR $15/month subscription with free 100 gems per month. No free-to-play. That is a valid and reasonable solution.

However, this is too late for GW2 to change the business model. ArenaNet can very well make a new game, GW3 perhaps, and make it subscription based. I mean, to be honest, I understand that they want to revolutionize the online gaming industry by opting for a buy-to-play model, but GW2 could have been much more if ArenaNet made it subscription based. The current state of the game is anemic that desperately needs a reliable lifeblood to flow in its veins. They can say otherwise, but the depth of the expansion is evidence that they rushed to release the expansion to keep the cash flowing. Path of Fire could have been much more, heck even core GW2 could have been much more if only they've chosen to make it a subscription based. Just my 2 cents.

[Manasa Devi.7958]

I think mount skins at 2000 gems are fine. What bothers me is the absence of mount skins that can be obtained by the more traditional methods.

Like glider skins.

Like armor skins.

Like outfits.

Like weapon skins.

[Lonecap.4105]

Guys, you're replying to the points that the reddit poster made about "alternatives to expensive skins". But the reddit poster wasn't suggesting them like they're attractive alternatives - they're obviously far worse than expensive skins, which was his point.

You people would cripple this game just so you can have your unicorn ponies cheaper.

[Ashen.2907]

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@Ashen.2907 said:

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

Two wrongs don't make a right.

No, but people willing to pay that amount industry wide establishes it as the fair market price...which is right.

Except that isn't true. Have you actually seen anyone using these mounts in-game? I sure as heck haven't. These prices are not meant to be fair to you and me: it is meant to prey on whales.

Yes I have.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

@notebene.3190 said:This is a good read too. In broader terms.

Thanks for linking this. It is a good read, and I'm glad someone debunked that video, which concluded games are not expensive to make because publishers' costs went down due to making fewer games.

[Aomine.5012]

And thus why customers are exploited.

They deserve it because there're alot of people like you.
Rng loot box and overpriced skin are prevailed in Mobile game and MMO because of people like you.

When dedicated game developers trying very hard to make good games, including more real contents, and only charging 20~60 dollars for their hard effort, MMO , FPS, Sports, and Mobile dev is charging 20+ dollars for a skin that takes them maybe a day or two to make.Kinda sad really our game industry has fallen to this level yet consumers don't protest against it.

[Dreams.3128]

@nottsgman.8206 said:

-$25 is the industry standard for MMO mounts. Even in games with larger player bases and a required subscription.do you have an example of other games where mounts are $25 (apart from WoW)? I'm honestly curious

TERA, Wildstar.

TERA- 40 bucksWildstar- 20 bucks

Honestly I am also with the subs guy. Kick these cheap people out. Lock them away. Pull down the door. If you don't wanna spend bucks, then you obviously don't wanna play that badly. I swear Free to Players are the literal cancer and the reason why WoW is not ever going to free to play.

[Belorn.2659]

As many people have already pointed out but is worth repeating, gems that is bought from gold has to first be bought by real cash by a player. It is even a better deal for anet since they take a 15% cut, so technically less stuff is being bought from the store if its first has been traded to an other player through gold.

Buying gems through gold is Anets take of gold sellers. They became the gold seller in gw2. The player who has money buy gems and trade them for gold. The player who has gold trade them for gems. All Anet does is to hold a buffer so they can be a middle man in the transaction, while taking a 15% cut. Its the best form of micro transaction, and likely one of the highest revenue source for anet on the store.

[Ronorra.1530]

A lot of bullshit to excuse an extravant pricing model... "$25 is the industry standard for MMO mounts"? You are talking about the same MMO that charges people 15 pop per char to migrate alone... what are you thinking?

I feel it is futile to post all the points to explain why this pricing and model is wrong on so many levels and I rather keep it with mentioning that I was very willing to spend gems in the gemshop (plenty of outfits and gliders) to help Anet but when I started to see lootdrops that were sold in the gemshop while they obviously should have been drops from raidbosses, I stopped with that. And now that Anet is going in that direction even more with more RNG, more expensive items and even less rewards obtainable during normal play it feels for me that the time is come not to vote with my wallet because Anet doesn't seem to care about that, but to vote with my time.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

They can set whatever price they wish but if the price set is higher than what the market will bear then maybe they should cut down expensive extra animations and cut the price.