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

[ReaverKane.7598]

@Umut.5471 said:Unless they go the RNG way, I'm ok with 2000 gems for a guaranteed skin.I understand that they need to make money somehow, it's just cosmetics and doesn't affect your gameplay. You guys should understand that they have to pay salaries of employees and server costs.They do it via cosmetics unlike some Korean MMORPGs with P2W items. I personally can't buy gems via real money, because my country's currency has a bad exchange rate vs. U.S. dollars and it would cost me a lot.(4x the price you guys pay) But I support Arenanet as long as they don't bring P2W or RNG anymore.

They can make the money without fleecing us. In fact, there's ample evidence of that: In five years no one in Arena Net died of starvation.Yet now they're boosting up prices and adding toxic practices all of a sudden. Coincidentally it's what a lot of other publishers are doing, to not so spectacular results.The point is, the micro in micro transactions was thrown out the window, because of a "new" concept of "Whales". As in developers will purposely sideline the majority of their player base to cater to a minority. The problem with this is that, volume of sales can easily make up for lower prices, if you know how to strike the balance (which Arena Net has been doing), but because of the "paradigm shift" that hasn't yet settled completely and is already generating backlash, Arena Net is going with the trend of toxic practices.

And it won't stop with mounts, you've seen the last 3000 gem bundle. They'll keep ramping stuff to that level until it becomes the "new normal" in the gemstore. And you know what will happen, and i can tell you because i've seen this happen in a dozen other "F2P" MMORPGs, there will come a point where the gemstore becomes so toxic that the majority of the player base ends up quitting and GW2 joins the ranks of the failed F2P games.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:My original post was about the transaction itself; however, since it's getting pushed to cover more than that, I'll address it.

Look at the current exchange rate trend. It's been trending up since launch. This means that more gems are leaving the exchange system than what is being put in. In other words, players are taking out more gems using gold than they are putting into it using real world currencies. That difference in gems, when converted to real world currency, is what Anet is losing.

They aren't loosing anything. You get way less gold for 100 gems than people pay for 100 gems. And the dollars were paid none the less. As far as Arena Net is concerned, gold has no value for them, they can spawn a character with a billion gold and won't lose a cent. What is good for them is that people buy gold for gems, and gems for gold, which means there's a bunch of people that give money to Arena Net even when they don't want anything from the gem store.

ReaverKane is correct. The only way ANet would lose is if they salted the exchange with unpaid-for gems from time to time. As the amount of gold needed to get gems goes up, so too does the amount of gold gained by those putting gems into the exchange. That means increased motivation to buy gems to exchange for gold. Salting the exchange would lower the amount of gold gained by gem exchangers. Were ANet to do so, they'd be cutting their revenue.

[Xibalbar.7459]

Its okay for me. I never paid so less money for a game. No sub, i can exchange gold to gems, i can play free content with lots of patches. I dont see any issue. People in gw2 forget about the high standart for free (nearly). The shop is only cosmetic, everything fine so far.

Good Job anet, keep it up!

[Crossaber.8934]

I don’t have a problem with mount skin loot box, nor i really need any of the mount skin. The original mount skin is beautiful.

But i did purchased 3 boxes, i bought 2 at first, bought a 3rd upon i obtain my griffin mount. I won’t say they are the best skin ever.

A springer with fire, a default jackal is with 4 color channel and a griffin with different head and larger wing.

I am happy with my purchase. I hate the default springer as it is too cute, cool i got a rabbit with fire. Jackal i really don’t use it, but a basic one with more color channel still nice. Griffin, it is the 3rd box i purchased right after i finish griffin quest, and i got a better griffin!

I am glad i don’t get to spend 2k gem to a single mount skin, i got 3, and i think it is good deal to me.

[Bish.8627]

It is not OK if you have the money or not. GW2 always had the model for micro transactions. I would tell friends how great it is to play an MMO with no sub but I would put in money almost monthly just to support them. Not anymore. Appealing to those with too much cash or those far too easy to part with it for a skin. High prices only attract the dumb and the rich. They will only alienate those who chose carefully what they buy. Such as myself, I will never spend another gem while there are stupid priced 2000 gem mount skins. Meanwhile, those on the forums defending it are only prolonging the cancer within the industry of milking customers for more and more for items no where near worth the price tag. EA are down 3 billion, Anet should start reversing this new business model fast before their customers start to scorn them.

[ReaverKane.7598]

@Bish.8627 said:It is not OK if you have the money or not. GW2 always had the model for micro transactions. I would tell friends how great it is to play an MMO with no sub but I would put in money almost monthly just to support them. Not anymore. Appealing to those with too much cash or those far too easy to part with it for a skin. High prices only attract the kitten and the rich. They will only alienate those who chose carefully what they buy. Such as myself, I will never spend another gem while there are stupid priced 2000 gem mount skins. Meanwhile, those on the forums defending it are only prolonging the cancer within the industry of milking customers for more and more for items no where near worth the price tag. EA are down 3 billion, Anet should start reversing this new business model fast before their customers start to scorn them.

Exactly mate, they're exchanging a short-term revenue stream for long term costumer satisfaction. As soon as the "Whales" start getting bored, the model becomes unsustainable. And even many of the "whales" are against this.One of my guildmates spends way more money than i'd say is good for him in gems (might not be a whale, but at least a "dolphin", like i wasn't even finished explaining to him about the LS2 and LS3 packs (he joined recently) and he had already bought them. I crafted a mace for him, and he bought gold with gems to buy Primordus weapons to use as skins... That's how fast and loose he is... He rushed the griffon AFTER getting a skin in the lootbox, and still he says he won't touch a mount for 25€.

And did you guys stop to think how toxic this is, even the term "Whale", it comes from CASINO high rollers.

[Obtena.7952]

People have a really hard understanding this business model and of course, rally against it for this reason. Here are somethings I do know:

1. What other games do is irrelevant; unless we knew the business model of GW2 AND the other games we want to compare it to, the comparisons aren't relevant.
2. I don't pay a monthly fee. I can't help but think that if we didn't have the current pricing and business model, we would be. I can only conclude the prices are set to maintain this level of service to players at the price we pay, for the goods in GS and the zero.

Is everyone a fan of the price for any particular item? Again, not very relevant. Not liking the price of a service or good simply means you don't get access to it if you don't buy it. Why is that concept regarded differently in an MMO, but is accepted in almost any other consumer product we buy? Do you go to your grovery store and say "Oh cashier, I don't want to pay that much, so change your price please?" No different.

Sustainability of the business model is our concern, but without knowing it, who's too say something costs too much at an objective sense? No one has enough information to say the pricing is wrong from some analytical POV.

[Leo G.4501]

@Matick.4132 said:

@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.

I see nothing that would indicate they took any economics courses. It's mainly just conjecture and outrage with calling people fanboys. I'd say that economics don't care about your feelings, but technically, they do. It's about manipulating your feelings and outrage is a symptom.

[ReaverKane.7598]

@Obtena.7952 said:People have a really hard understanding this business model and of course, rally against it for this reason. Here are somethings I do know:

1. What other games do is irrelevant; unless we knew the business model of GW2 AND the other games we want to compare it to, the comparisons aren't relevant.

True, to a point, you can always compare, as long as you understand the limitations of that comparison.

2. I don't pay a monthly fee. I can't help but think that if we didn't have the current pricing and business model, we would be. I can only conclude the prices are set to maintain this level of service to players at the price we pay, for the goods in GS and the zero.

It worked for 5 years. Why the sudden and large shift? Its not like the could have gathered data on the viability of mount prices, ro even stuff at this price. The only thing that was ever sold at these prices were bundles, and their value was arguably much higher than the 2000 gem price, the current is the opposite case. Then there's the argument that a lower price would sell more items, increasing the revenue. But like you said, that's speculation.

Is everyone a fan of the price for any particular item? Again, not very relevant. Not liking the price of a service or good simply means you don't get access to it if you don't buy it. Why is that concept regarded differently in an MMO, but is accepted in almost any other consumer product we buy? Do you go to your grovery store and say "Oh cashier, I don't want to pay that much, so change your price please?" No different.

Your analogy holds no ground. Sorry...The thing with the grocery store, is that the grocery store will sell different brands, and i can pick a cheaper one. And if that brand is not available on that grocery store, i can buy it from a different one.

As far as brands, we don't have those. Well we have, probably what they meant with this all, the non-choice of RNG boxes.

In your analogy would be like me complaining that the spaghetti is too expensive, and my only choice would be to draw a lotto that could in fact get me a pack of spaghetti for less money, but might also land me a pack of rice, or potatoes, or Chinese noodles, etc.

The analogous behaviour to buying from another Grocery is pretty much what we, as people that love GW2 and want to see it grow, or at least stay viable, don't want. Which would be to quit GW2 and play another game.

[PopeUrban.2578]

@Obtena.7952 said:People have a really hard understanding this business model and of course, rally against it for this reason. Here are somethings I do know:

1. What other games do is irrelevant; unless we knew the business model of GW2 AND the other games we want to compare it to, the comparisons aren't relevant.
2. I don't pay a monthly fee. I can't help but think that if we didn't have the current pricing and business model, we would be. I can only conclude the prices are set to maintain this level of service to players at the price we pay, for the goods in GS and the zero.

Is everyone a fan of the price for any particular item? Again, not very relevant. Not liking the price of a service or good simply means you don't get access to it if you don't buy it. Why is that concept regarded differently in an MMO, but is accepted in almost any other consumer product we buy? Do you go to your grovery store and say "Oh cashier, I don't want to pay that much, so change your price please?" No different.

Sustainability of the business model is our concern, but without knowing it, who's too say something costs too much at an objective sense? No one has enough information to say the pricing is wrong from some analytical POV.

It doesn't have to cost too much in an objective sense. It only has to cost too much in a subjective sense.

Regardless of its actual cost to make (and these require less work to make than an outfit and cost more than twice as much) the customer is not responsible for your costs. The customer is only responsible for buying what they think is a fair price for your goods or services. When you have a large number of customers complaining about your price point, it falls on you to decide whether or not you want to listen to them.

Multiple posts from MO have indicated that Anet does not care to listen to the customer when it comes to Anet's business model or gem store pricing, and like most studios that manage an "optional" microtransaction shop listens solely to the data, and targets solely a minority of the customer base.

If THAT customer base, the ones they actually care about, feel like the price is too high it doesn't matter if anet is actually selling the skins at a loss. The actual cost to produce things does not matter once an item is in a storefront. What matters is whether you can convince the customer that the price point is within a range they fell comfortable paying for.

It is not our job to rub anet's shoulders or offer them charity. It is our job to buy the products they sell us if we think those products are worth the asking price. If a business is failing to meet customer expectations, it is the fault of the business, not the customer. Businesses exist to meet customer demands. Those that do so successfully succeed. Those that fail to do so cease to be businesses after a while.

[Ayrilana.1396]

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

They aren't loosing anything. You get way less gold for 100 gems than people pay for 100 gems. And the dollars were paid none the less. As far as Arena Net is concerned, gold has no value for them, they can spawn a character with a billion gold and won't lose a cent. What is good for them is that people buy gold for gems, and gems for gold, which means there's a bunch of people that give money to Arena Net even when they don't want anything from the gem store.

You’re thinking the wrong way and comparing apples to oranges. How much gold someone spends for gems or how much gold someone gets from gems isn’t important. They’re loss is the value of the extra gems that those who buy gems over the years have obtained.

So the OP was correct in their statement about lower mount prices as it would cause more people to convert rather than use real world currency and result in losses in potential gem purchases. Now, the actual percentage of increase that would do that is debatable. I doubt it’d be a large percentage but that’s just my opinion.

[Ayrilana.1396]

@BolkovonHarnfeldt.1372 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@BolkovonHarnfeldt.1372 said:With the current system, people buy gems (with real money) in order to obtain in-game gold. Without players willing to trade their gold into gems these people wouldn't spend money on the gems (because it's the gold they are after in order to buy stuff on the TP). And the cash people were willing to spend in order to buy the gems to exchange into gold goes straight into ANet's pockets. So where do they lose? (Of course, they could simply cut out the player gold-input and sell the gold for cash at a fixed exchange rate, though that would probably give rise to more inflation and create a huge outcry at the player base).

My original post was about the transaction itself; however, since it's getting pushed to cover more than that, I'll address it.

Look at the current exchange rate trend. It's been trending up since launch. This means that more gems are leaving the exchange system than what is being put in. In other words, players are taking out more gems using gold than they are putting into it using real world currencies. That difference in gems, when converted to real world currency, is what Anet is losing.

Isn't the gem-price appreciation simply a consequence of more people

wanting

to buy gems with gold than the other way around? Hence the price rises? How can more gems leave the system than are being put in? Where do they come from (unless I'm misunderstanding how the exchange works: you can only buy gems that other players offer)?As an aside:

if

gems were really leaving the system via the exchange mechanism that would not necessarily mean that ANet is losing money, since you'd have to assume that people would pay cash if they couldn't pay with gold (and there is zero cost in providing an additional copy of a skin, it doesn't use up any real world materials etc.).

Simple. Gems spent in the store on items don’t go back to the exchange.

[Widowmaker Z.4802]

I have to laugh at the people comparing the price to other games. Most of these other games also allow you to obtain mounts in game, whether it's with gold, achievements or drops. GW2 has no mount skins, except for the original mounts themselves, that are obtainable in game.

[Jacuzzi.1643]

Here's the problem: community members want all the benefits of playing a subscription based MMO (regular content updates, no microtransaction aids, non P2W progression) without paying the subscription. This wave of demands is so confusing to me. You pay $30 for a FULL expansion and 1 year's worth of living world updates and people are still complaining about COSMETIC SKINS? In an MMO like FFXIV I'd have to buy the expansion ($50) and pay a monthly sub ($15) for a year, costing up to $200. These are skins that do not gate progression or give any stat advantages whatsoever and people still believe that they are entitled to free skins in game.

[zealex.9410]

Dunnon if you listed it but they could add another currency as well (re gems for example) which is only rl money to gems type of deal. Having 2 diff price points for items a reg gem price and a blue one so ye.

[zealex.9410]

@Sir Vincent III.1286 said:

@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.

Both wow and ff14 are living proof of that. In terms of mmos 20 ppl paying 15 euros/dollars per months is better than 5 or 6 ppl paying 30 or 40 if by chance they find something that draws their attention.

Let alone if the other 15-14 can simply farm in game and make these puchases.

[zealex.9410]

@Ayumi Spender.1082 said:

@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.

Whats PSO2

[zealex.9410]

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

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

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Not only that but he's dismissing the fact that the "industry standard" is that the "premium" 25$ mounts are a fraction of the total available ones.I mean wow has like 5 times more mounts from random drops only (then there's quest rewards, class and racial mounts, etc) than it has in the Store.

@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

Final Faintasy XIV also has 25$ mounts, but again, it's a tiny fraction of the available mounts.The "Industry standard" argument is disingenuous, because the "industry standard" is to provide a ton of alternatives via in-game rewards, with only a few "premium" alternatives.

@ProverbsofHell.2307 said:

This was posted by user DragonWhimsy on reddit/guildwars2 and he raised some excellent points that I wanted to share.

_Original post link:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/7gd33r/mounts_at_2000_gems_actually_are_ok_and_heres_why/_

"So we as a community are doing the outrage over mount pricing in the gem store thing again. And while that is understandable to a certain extent it is also something ANet must do whether we like it or not.

Let us put the situation into context:

-These mounts are not simple re-colors like the Halloween and most of the License mounts.Those skins were low effort to create and the 2000 gem mounts are high effort with completely new looks, new effects, sounds, and sometimes animations.

I counter with Outfits, gliders, halloween mounts.

-$25 is the industry standard for MMO mounts. Even in games with larger player bases and a required subscription.See above...

-The default mount skins are beautiful. ANet didn't skimp on them like they did with the default glider. No one should feel bad riding around on the default mount skins.

They skimped on the dye channels to channel people that want costumization towards the gem store, just like they did with gliders, but now with more greed.

-You don't pay a subscription for this game and the store is not P2W.

WoW's subscription can be bought with in-game gold. The game's cost is akin to a AAA game, and they managed fine without having stuff costing 2000gems for a skin so far.

-Calling the game Fashion Wars 2 in jest does NOT make high priced cosmetics P2W no matter how many times you try to equate the two.

As with all of the above, fallacious argument. This game's (and most other MMORPGs) End-game is about looks. You win by looking good. All other rewards are cosmetic as well, Legendaries are mostly cosmetic, with a bit of functionality (which they limit - see Sigils- because it's meant to be mostly cosmetic).

-If Anet made the mounts 800 gems you know very well you would go to the Silverwastes and farm gold and would never spend a penny on these mounts. That is why if they lowered the price they would get less money even if more people "bought" them. Yes many more times the amount of people would have the mount but many less people would spend money on them.

Those gems were paid for by people buying gold with gems. So no net loss there, in fact as there's a HUGE deferential between the price of gems for gold and the price of gold for gems, i'd argue that Arena Net can put up a profit.

-ANet must find a way to justify having 300-400 people working on GW2. That is a large amount of people for a game in this genre. That is why we have such a strong content cadence. For comparison Bungie has 500 people working on Destiny and they have a lot less releases every year and charge for every single patch AND have a cash shop. GW2 took a hit after HoT's and the game likely cannot continue the pace of current development without increasing profits in a time when NCSoft's investors wonder why the entire company hasn't moved to mobile development after Lineage M's massive profits.

So, we have to literally pay for Arena Net's mistakes? That's your argument? They put out a kitten rushed expansion that pushed a lot of the comunity out of the game, and can't hold on to players, so the solution is to push more players with toxic gemstore practices? Sound logic!

-The mount is NOT nearly the price of the expansion. The expansion was sold very cheaply with the knowledge that some people would pay more for mount skins and carry those of us who didn't want to pay for a $50 expansion. Mount skins aren't a supplement to PoF. PoF exists to sell these mount skins. These mount skins are why NCSoft has allowed ANet to continue with it current massive content output for a game that was not generating nearly enough profits to warrant it post-HoT's.Well, MO said NCSoft had no weight on the decisions or the pricing. So yeah, defeated your argument.NC Soft green lit GW2's expansion because it's the only IP that does well in the west.

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.

Someone ALREADY has to pay real money for the gems.

-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.

Yeah, and EVERYONE would stop playing in that day. Differential treatment isn't good PR; and the main selling point of this vs FFXIV and WoW is the no-subscription model. Also, look, the "Games are to expensive to make" argument is BS at it's best.

-ANet could charge money for every patch.They already do.

-ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.And lose everyone.

-ANet could drastically cut content updates and either fire a bunch of people or put them in a mobile game's division.They don't make Mobile games? You're confusing Arena Net with NCSoft. You know how many IPs NCSoft has?

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.No we don't.

GW2 must adapt or wither. It has had a historically gentle cash shop which worked back when GW2 was the new kid on the block. Now that we're five years in it MUST adapt to a smaller player base. Mount skins is that solution. It's cosmetic and optional and in no way P2W. That is why ANet just spent the last 2 years making an entire expansion centered around them. It's their solution. It's their way of generating more profits and allow them to continue to fully focus on GW2 without ruining the game by making it P2W. If you REALLY want to take that solution away from them then you have to pick one of the other solutions.

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

.

W8 how does anet change me money for every patch i dont understand?

You are also ignoring the fact that both wow and ff14 have a subscription. It would be outrageous to have only cashshop mounts while also havimg a subscription.

[Widowmaker Z.4802]

@Jacuzzi.1643 said:Here's the problem: community members want all the benefits of playing a subscription based MMO (regular content updates, no microtransaction aids, non P2W progression) without paying the subscription. This wave of demands is so confusing to me. You pay $30 for a FULL expansion and 1 year's worth of living world updates and people are still complaining about COSMETIC SKINS? In an MMO like FFXIV I'd have to buy the expansion ($50) and pay a monthly sub ($15) for a year, costing up to $200. These are skins that do not gate progression or give any stat advantages whatsoever and people still believe that they are entitled to free skins in game.

Well with that logic, then all skins from armor to backbacks to weapons and so on should also be gem store purchases only then. People are not asking for free in game skins only, it's more about the price, people are willing to pay but not willing to pay what Anet is asking. Also there are other MMO's besides WoW and FFXIV where you can obtain mounts in game that are b2p or f2p.

[zealex.9410]

@Widowmaker Z.4802 said:

@Jacuzzi.1643 said:Here's the problem: community members want all the benefits of playing a subscription based MMO (regular content updates, no microtransaction aids, non P2W progression) without paying the subscription. This wave of demands is so confusing to me. You pay $30 for a FULL expansion and 1 year's worth of living world updates and people are still complaining about COSMETIC SKINS? In an MMO like FFXIV I'd have to buy the expansion ($50) and pay a monthly sub ($15) for a year, costing up to $200. These are skins that do not gate progression or give any stat advantages whatsoever and people still believe that they are entitled to free skins in game.

Well with that logic, then all skins from armor to backbacks to weapons and so on should also be gem store purchases only then. People are not asking for free in game skins only, it's more about the price, people are willing to pay but not willing to pay what Anet is asking. Also there are other MMO's besides WoW and FFXIV where you can obtain mounts in game that are b2p or f2p.

Well we can obtaine 5 mounts in game in gw2 too. But in all seriousness its still early and we dont know whether they will add legendary mounts in diff game modes. But still the mounta are obtainable in game.

[Widowmaker Z.4802]

@zealex.9410 said:

@Widowmaker Z.4802 said:

@Jacuzzi.1643 said:Here's the problem: community members want all the benefits of playing a subscription based MMO (regular content updates, no microtransaction aids, non P2W progression) without paying the subscription. This wave of demands is so confusing to me. You pay $30 for a FULL expansion and 1 year's worth of living world updates and people are still complaining about COSMETIC SKINS? In an MMO like FFXIV I'd have to buy the expansion ($50) and pay a monthly sub ($15) for a year, costing up to $200. These are skins that do not gate progression or give any stat advantages whatsoever and people still believe that they are entitled to free skins in game.

Well with that logic, then all skins from armor to backbacks to weapons and so on should also be gem store purchases only then. People are not asking for free in game skins only, it's more about the price, people are willing to pay but not willing to pay what Anet is asking. Also there are other MMO's besides WoW and FFXIV where you can obtain mounts in game that are b2p or f2p.

Well we can obtaine 5 mounts in game in gw2 too. But in all seriousness its still early and we dont know whether they will add legendary mounts in diff game modes. But still the mounta are obtainable in game.

And I stated that in my earlier post.

[b k.1648]

@zealex.9410 said:

Both wow and ff14 are living proof of that. In terms of mmos 20 ppl paying 15 euros/dollars per months is better than 5 or 6 ppl paying 30 or 40 if by chance they find something that draws their attention.

Let alone if the other 15-14 can simply farm in game and make these puchases.

Doesn't really work like that. Subscription fees also create a lot more player churn, because players have to justify their spending. If they're just casually playing a weekend or two a month, it's a waste of their money. GW2 gets to keep those players who otherwise would spend no money at all, and make occasional sales on gemstore items for each of them.

Drop the price of mount skins by half, and there's no proof that sales will more than double to compensate, apart from all the armchair accountants claiming their anecdotal examples of themselves and 2-3 friends are somehow representative of the entire GW2 playerbase.

Additionally, the players who farm in-game gold to trade for gems are actually earning Arenanet as much as the ones who just buy gems. The reason is that those gems you buy with gold were already bought by someone else who didn't want to farm.

And that's the main reason I'm skeptical of arguments based on vox pops on the forums. I seldom ever see anyone claiming to buy gold from gems here, yet there are obviously players who do, and they're ANet's most important customers. If their views aren't represented in the debate, the debate is meaningless.

[Egrimm Van Horstmann.7921]

@ProverbsofHell.2307 said:

This was posted by user DragonWhimsy on reddit/guildwars2 and he raised some excellent points that I wanted to share.

_Original post link: https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/7gd33r/mounts_at_2000_gems_actually_are_ok_and_heres_why/_

"So we as a community are doing the outrage over mount pricing in the gem store thing again. And while that is understandable to a certain extent it is also something ANet must do whether we like it or not.First off I'll point out this is a false dichotomy. There is no demand that Anet have high priced skins, in fact there is actually good evidence lower priced skins sell better. And the only problem with Adoption License was the RNG, everybody would have been fine paying the 400 gems for each skin if they only wanted a few.Let us put the situation into context:-These mounts are not simple re-colors like the Halloween and most of the License mounts.Those skins were low effort to create and the 2000 gem mounts are high effort with completely new looks, new effects, sounds, and sometimes animations.Yes this was the justification for the Forged Jackal. So let's take a moment and consider the character outfits by comparison, there is definitely a lot of skins that change the character in the gem store for 7-800 gems. Second if Anet has to devote soo much of their restricted resources to the 2000 gem mounts when they could produce a theme like the spooky for less gems it's obvious we've got a problem with properly utilizing resources. So I'm not convinced Anet is being so haphazard with their devs, they've managed to make LW, Raid, and new PvP in short order. So where did these resources magically pop up from?-$25 is the industry standard for MMO mounts. Even in games with larger player bases and a required subscription.If you mean WOW is probably one of the only other MMOs with a world big enough for mounts and they charge both a sub and then $25 US for a mount, and that should be OK for Anet, you don't understand the economics of the MMOs in their current state. MMOs are dying off or moving to strong skinner boxes in the free to play mobile market. It's actually a benefit to Anet not to follow this trend, because once people are burned by a skinner box they never play it again. I was there for the outrage and sub losses due to the WOW store for buyable content after they were already raking in $15 a month. I can tell you where all that money went, it didn't go into WOW they had larger content droughts. It was diverted to their other games and they basically gutted the devs of WOW to make new games because at the time they were prepared for it to end. Strange how their on a smaller sub base and banging out content faster than ever.-The default mount skins are beautiful. ANet didn't skimp on them like they did with the default glider. No one should feel bad riding around on the default mount skins.Art is completely subjective. I found both mounts ugly. Strangely if the Forged Mount was a body for all five with effects where it could be each type for that price I would have had no hesitation in having a forged themed mount pack.-You don't pay a subscription for this game and the store is not P2W.OK, this may be true they don't have a sub. But there are a lot of MMOs that don't have subs right now, even ones that started with one.-Calling the game Fashion Wars 2 in jest does NOT make high priced cosmetics P2W no matter how many times you try to equate the two.Why does a person buy a high priced anything? That should explain why your missing the point. Even WOW which does a tournament knows that the bulk of WOW store purchases and subs are casual player based. Elite players aren't going to stick with a game when there's a content drought aka, what happened during Cata when WOW went to harder content.-If Anet made the mounts 800 gems you know very well you would go to the Silverwastes and farm gold and would never spend a penny on these mounts. That is why if they lowered the price they would get less money even if more people "bought" them. Yes many more times the amount of people would have the mount but many less people would spend money on them.Actually this is a big mistake many people make. No GW2 doesn't benefit from players being on only one map or paying money and not playing, however if someone wants to grind out money in the Silverwastes they are doing Anet a favor by keeping their servers up and running. Too low of a player base and meta fails too often. How many people bought HoT an influx of players in the Silverwastes is just what these players will need to get content moving. In fact one could argue that they would make better use of the player base by putting in skins that require you to travel to different maps and collect the necessary items. Second 800 gems they would have still spent money, real money. And to those who farmed them up that would actually be the minority. $8 or how many hours play? How much is your time worth? People pay more than that for a fast food meal.-ANet must find a way to justify having 300-400 people working on GW2. That is a large amount of people for a game in this genre. That is why we have such a strong content cadence. For comparison Bungie has 500 people working on Destiny and they have a lot less releases every year and charge for every single patch AND have a cash shop. GW2 took a hit after HoT's and the game likely cannot continue the pace of current development without increasing profits in a time when NCSoft's investors wonder why the entire company hasn't moved to mobile development after Lineage M's massive profits.If they were struggling with this we'd see a ton of server problems. Companies don't pull devs all at once, when Blizz downsized from Wrath (there best money making to date) they lost devs in chunks. So no we're not seeing an overnight collapse or rapid downsizing.-The mount is NOT nearly the price of the expansion. The expansion was sold very cheaply with the knowledge that some people would pay more for mount skins and carry those of us who didn't want to pay for a $50 expansion. Mount skins aren't a supplement to PoF. PoF exists to sell these mount skins. These mount skins are why NCSoft has allowed ANet to continue with it current massive content output for a game that was not generating nearly enough profits to warrant it post-HoT's.Did you just compare an entire expansion of material to a retooled mount skin? You can't use the mount skin without the expansion.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.No this would be disastrous. The only thing keeping GW2 from becoming WOW in terms of economy is their currency is stabilized by this trade off. A recent WOW video basic herbs were selling for over 100 gold. Basically their economy is soo broken that 100g is less gold to effort than farming a single herb! New players are priced out of the market and more importantly game content until they can actually make enough coin to start farming. Also should add crafting is practically a net loss endeavor in WOW.-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.They really don't need a sub, and given how long they've gone without it that could actually kill the player base as many might just go to WOW since there's a larger player base and no need to stick with a company that's just going to fleece them later.-ANet could charge money for every patch.Now you're just being silly. That would ensure an end of the player base well at least enough to keep servers running not to mention a massive loss of players like that could kill the company, since the shareholders aren't going to be OK with losing all that money.-ANet could begin to sell P2W items in the gem store.They could, but given every game that's gone that way is dead or truly bad skinner boxes. That would be a bad decision and their not that desperate.-ANet could drastically cut content updates and either fire a bunch of people or put them in a mobile game's division.Again you don't understand how this would hurt shareholders. A large layoff will scare customers into believing Anet is dying off and the loss of profit will do more damage than good. Second putting it in the mobile market would pretty much kill the GW2 player base, mobile MMOs have very short life spans.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.They really aren't solutions as this is a problem that was created by an RNG mistake and people overlooking the cost of the Forged Hound skin. Anet can fix it, the question will be is it better for Anet to sell skins at a low cost or high cost? Either way they'll sell, but higher costs doesn't mean more income as evidenced by the 30 mount drop. Take that same set of skins if Anet had put them together by five mount themes that could be bought in bulk with those five skins guaranteed at 1600 gems like the spooky set, they would have sold without conflict. And they could have still gotten away with them at 400 gems each for individuals (since this would have looked as a compromise for spooky skins not having an individual option which was the only complaint on the skins). Spread that out over six weeks dropping five skins each week and everyone's happy for the most part.GW2 must adapt or wither. It has had a historically gentle cash shop which worked back when GW2 was the new kid on the block. Now that we're five years in it MUST adapt to a smaller player base. Mount skins is that solution. It's cosmetic and optional and in no way P2W. That is why ANet just spent the last 2 years making an entire expansion centered around them. It's their solution. It's their way of generating more profits and allow them to continue to fully focus on GW2 without ruining the game by making it P2W. If you REALLY want to take that solution away from them then you have to pick one of the other solutions.So do they adapt to their fanbase or sell out to the highest bidder? Sure hope they don't do the latter, that would be really dumb given most MMOs are free to play mobile and not nearly the current quality of GW2.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.You're missing the point of why they would be considered an ally in this. They're against player exploitation, that's the same thing being argued here.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."Not really, let's start by considering how long it took them to actually release skins in such quantity after the spooky set (which was a test bed to see if the community would really buy it). Choya pets and stuff are the same thing, Anet tests them out if the community bites then they put more resources towards it. So no we don't buy mount skins nor have be OK with the price for Anet to continue making money. After all many companies fail when they never get feedback on what their customers want are willing to pay for.

[Cantatus.4065]

@Lilyanna.9361 said:

@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.

Yeah, if you want to kill GW2. The game would not survive without "cheap people." MMOs are dependent on an active playerbase. The more players you have online, the easier it is to do group activities. No one likes having to sit around for 30 minutes to get a battleground to start like in other MMOs I've played. And as F2P has become a more common model, it's much harder for subscription based games to compete and build any sort of community. Nearly every MMO that has come out in the past 5+ years eventually realizes the value of cheap players. It's like girls' night at a bar: You lure in one group with freebies in the hopes of luring in another that will be spending money all night. It's why MMOs that go F2P and suddenly have a ton of cheap players often end up making more money.

Every whale that is spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on this game is friends with those cheap players. They're in guilds with them. You think the whales are going to stick around if you remove all of those people? Even players who never spend a dime in the game contribute to its success.

[Daffan.8924]

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

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Exactly. The only people who buy them in WoW at $25 are the whales, and occassionaly someone will buy 1-2 if they like them. The rest are in-game and have much better visuals and prestige associated with them.

People might say WoW has a sub cost, but in GW2 you have to buy bag slots, bank slots, character slots (to even play all the classes!) and so forth.