Mike O'Briens's new response to high priced Mount skins

[ReaverKane.7598]

@Lambent.6375 said:

@Deathanizer.3716 said:Is it just me or did Mike just basically say that Microtransactions aren't working?

If a big Microtransaction catalog isn't working anymore why don't you just raise the price of the expansion?

I mean, you just said it. Nobody buys separate things, they only buy big packs of things. T H E N

W H A T

I S

T H E

P O I N T

O F

M I C R O T R A N S A C T I O N S ?

People were complaining about the price of the last expasion.

Gem store items can be bought with gold, expansions can't. So I guess they decided to make things cheaper for people who normally don't use cash in the gem store?

And they were right to do it... I mean expansion content on its own, doesn't merit the 50€ price tag. Living story DOES add to that and evens it out. But lets face it, if there was no Living story and no gemstore, the game would have been dead with the release of HoT. Living story is usually the height of the content, and they know it.Also, the game is fiver years old, i don't think the team grew that much (quite the opposite possibly), the release cadence is subdued compared to LS1 and LS2, and yet NOW they need more money? Does not compute.

[LanfearShadowflame.3189]

@ReaverKane.7598 said:Sure, but a lot of people that actually will like it won't buy it because he can feed his family with that money.

This is bound to happen regardless of the price it's set at though. Its a cosmetic nicety. Those that can afford it will buy it, those that can't will grumble - and either farm gold, save for the next time it comes around (since its limited time), or forego it all together. The same things that happen with it at its current price.

@ReaverKane.7598 said:We don't have the data, but, except for the Warhound, which, looking at sightings in game, there aren't that many... Most people i've asked saw at most a couple of them.Now look at any outfit in the game that costs 800 gems. As soon as it comes out the game gets flooded with people wearing them. So it's not hard to be fairly certain, even without data, that the price did influence the sales negatively.

I will concur that the Hound seems to be less prevalent. This could be due to the skin itself, could be due to jackal being a lesser used mount by some. I mean, how many threads have we had asking what the point of that mount is? (Personally I love mine, but to each their own.)

The peacock though, I've seen a bunch of those in comparison. I cannot believe how many I've seen. I honestly didn't think it'd be that popular, seemingly despite the price.

Sure we don't have the data... But no data is presented... Why is that? I mean, they could show us Sales revenue of The warhound, vs sales revenue of outfits, in a comparable amount of time. Sure it wouldn't change the fact that it's expensive, but it would vindicate their point of view. Yet they won't produce it, because MO's statement is likely just a smokescreen, because nothing in the game has ever been sold at that price-tag that was a single cosmetic item, so what data did they have?

They rarely share any type of aggregated data with us, and definitely not sales data like this. I know very few companies that do share this information freely. There is nothing that forces them to, it's entirely their prerogative. (Not to mention sharing that kind of information could backfire badly). While I rarely encourage trust, that's all we can do here, to an extent. The man hasn't deliberately mislead us as yet. (Unless I missed something?)

Bundles? It's right there in the description, the actual value of the bundle is higher than the gem cost.Gathering tools? Permanent Contracts? Both have actual usability and bring QoL, not just cosmetics. So i'm curious, what metrics did they use to predict sales and establish a price?I'll tell you what: HYPE.

Oh I'm sure hype for the mounts factors in. They'll ride the high while they can, which will generate more sales. The issue is that we assume that the data they look at comes only from what they generate themselves. I'm sure that's included, but I'm also sure they probably look at what other games are doing and what seems to be 'acceptable' there. They all draw off each other, that's absolutely no secret.

Of course you could be absolutely correct and Mo is talking completely out his ass, and all they did was post the 'common' mount skin prices on a dart board and went with whichever one the dart landed on. That's entirely possible. I'd like to have a little more faith in them than that.

[LanfearShadowflame.3189]

@Ashen.2907 said:

@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

@Asum.4960 said:You also completely disregard that a lower price means more units sold (again, at no additional cost, unlike material goods).

I'm not going to bother addressing anything else. I don't have the time. But this...this line is an

assumption

. Which the reality of may or may not be true. We have nothing to back this up though. No trends for gemstore sales on which to base anything. Based on

other

things, based on our own actions, and so on we assume that it would sell more if it were a lower cost, and that

isn't

necessarily true. Being a lower price doesn't make someone like it more, for example. So that person isn't going to buy it regardless.

To be fair, it is a very solid assumption that the mount would sell more if the price were lower.

However, would it sell enough to offset the loss of revenue caused by the lower price? Would it sell enough to offset the cost of development? Would it sell enough to offset the item's portion of other development costs (keep in mind that the skin is expected to not only pay for itself but to also pay for otherx and ongoing, game development)?

We do not know, and neither does the poster claiming that the skin would be profitable at 20 cents each.

I suppose my points never come off well when Im flustered and in a rush. But yes, its a reasonable assumption to make that it would sell more at a lower price point, this leading into all of the following questions you pose. All of that was part of my thought process and all of which needs to be taken into consideration with anything they decide to post in the gem store. My general point originally being that its silly (and potentially a little ignorant) to simple assume that it will do "better" overall at a lower price point. As Asum pointed out (and isn't lost on me), as a digital product they can sell it repeatedly forever without reinvesting anything in it, but they don't just post it and leave it. They post it for a little while, and then take it down. Holding it back until they can post it again and generate new hype and additional sales for it. During that 'down time' it's not making any money to cover the continued dev work. Oh sure, there will always be something new in the store but there's always risk.

[ReaverKane.7598]

@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

Bundles? It's right there in the description, the actual value of the bundle is higher than the gem cost.Gathering tools? Permanent Contracts? Both have actual usability and bring QoL, not just cosmetics. So i'm curious, what metrics did they use to predict sales and establish a price?I'll tell you what: HYPE.

Oh I'm sure hype for the mounts factors in. They'll ride the high while they can, which will generate more sales. The issue is that we assume that the data they look at comes only from what they generate themselves. I'm sure that's included, but I'm also sure they probably look at what other games are doing and what seems to be 'acceptable' there. They all draw off each other, that's absolutely no secret.

Of course you could be absolutely correct and Mo is talking completely out his kitten, and all they did was post the 'common' mount skin prices on a dart board and went with whichever one the dart landed on. That's

entirely

possible. I'd

like

to have a little more faith in them than that.

Well, if they wen't from what other games offer, they're either disingenuous, naive, or incompetent. Because most if not all other games with similar priced mounts offer way more choices as in-game rewards than they have as premium rewards.And that's also the root of the problem, there are very little to no rewards in-game, and many of the ones that are are basically farms or gold sinks. And even then, there's arguably better options on the gemstore (like legendary armor has been criticized of being uglier and more plain than many outfits and gemstore skins).And when you look at gliders and mount skins, then you can see just how strongly the funnel you into the gemstore. While gliders you have a few nice ones as part of legendary backs, so it lessens the problem, both gliders and mounts have NO in-game reward alternatives (except the aforementioned legendary backs) and in both cases they

severely hindered

the customization of the base item.Both base glider and mounts only have one dye channel as to funnel players to the gemstore. And while gliders were somewhat cheap and had the legendary back alternatives, mounts have been released with predatory practices like extremely overpriced ones and lootboxes, and no alternatives.And what's even worse, is that they had 30+ skins ready made, and sold the blandest possible Deluxe edition with no deluxe mount, while at least HoT gave us a damn glider.So yeah, i'm pissed that i paid 80€ for the game, and now they want 25€ more for a single mount skin, and the other alternative is exploitative (hopefully soon to be illegal) practice.I've never skimped on GuildWars because i've felt the game earns it. But there's egg on my face right now, and if i knew 3 months ago what i know now, i'd have bought the 30€ one.And if the game lives to see another expansion, unless a lot changes, that's all they'll see from me ever again, the bare minimum.

[Pifil.5193]

Can everyone please stop calling them micro-transactions? They use the term micro-transaction because they think it makes their business and pricing schemes more palatable but €25 is not a micro-transaction. Far from it.

As for this latest post, meh, I've decided that complaining about it will do nothing. I don't believe they're really interested in our feedback, they have their sales figures and they're all they truly want. In the past I'd buy things I didn't really care about in order to support the game (like the halloween mount pack, for example). But that's ended. From now on if they produce something I want at a price that I find reasonable then I will buy it. If not then I will simply not buy it and spend my money elsewhere.

That's all any of us can really do.

[LanfearShadowflame.3189]

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

Bundles? It's right there in the description, the actual value of the bundle is higher than the gem cost.Gathering tools? Permanent Contracts? Both have actual usability and bring QoL, not just cosmetics. So i'm curious, what metrics did they use to predict sales and establish a price?I'll tell you what: HYPE.

Oh I'm sure hype for the mounts factors in. They'll ride the high while they can, which will generate more sales. The issue is that we assume that the data they look at comes only from what they generate themselves. I'm sure that's included, but I'm also sure they probably look at what other games are doing and what seems to be 'acceptable' there. They all draw off each other, that's absolutely no secret.

Of course you could be absolutely correct and Mo is talking completely out his kitten, and all they did was post the 'common' mount skin prices on a dart board and went with whichever one the dart landed on. That's

entirely

possible. I'd

like

to have a little more faith in them than that.

Well, if they wen't from what other games offer, they're either disingenuous, naive, or incompetent.

I won't necessarily disagree with this if that turns out to be the case. The issue, again, being that we don't know. All the said is that they have data, and that it shows 'x, y, z'

And that's also the root of the problem, there are very little to no rewards in-game, and many of the ones that are are basically farms or gold sinks. And even then, there's arguably better options on the gemstore (like legendary armor has been criticized of being uglier and more plain than many outfits and gemstore skins).And when you look at gliders and mount skins, then you can see just how strongly the funnel you into the gemstore. While gliders you have a few nice ones as part of legendary backs, so it lessens the problem, both gliders and mounts have NO in-game reward alternatives (except the aforementioned legendary backs) and in both cases they severely hindered the customization of the base item.

"Better" is subjective. As is "not rewarding" Though, I will concur that we have quite a bit in the gemstore compared to what we get in game. I have argued that this has started to get better. PoF had more armor sets than HoT for example. We have 2 more datamined (supposedly crafted) weapon sets coming, and it sounds like another armor set. They've stopped putting armor skins in the store, stating those will come to us as in-game rewards now. I'm fine with them sticking outfits in the store, those are "easier to make" per there own words, so I fully expect those more often. Now, I'd like to seem them go back through and add some additional glider skins as in game rewards (since mount skins are the new flavor of the month), as well as some mount skins. However, because these are both ideal items to monetize, I doubt we'll see more than a handful of in-game rewarded skins, ever.

Both base glider and mounts only have one dye channel as to funnel players to the gemstore. And while gliders were somewhat cheap and had the legendary back alternatives, mounts have been released with predatory practices like extremely overpriced ones and lootboxes, and no alternatives.And what's even worse, is that they had 30+ skins ready made, and sold the blandest possible Deluxe edition with no deluxe mount, while at least HoT gave us a kitten glider.

I feel that mount skins were something they had planned in advance on monetizing, where as glider's may have been a bit of an after thought. Considering it was a little bit of time after HoTs launch that we even got the first option.

As for the use of the term "predatory," I think all of you are going a bit overboard with that use again. However, you're entitled to your opinion.

So yeah, i'm pissed that i paid 80€ for the game, and now they want 25€ more for a single mount skin, and the other alternative is exploitative (hopefully soon to be illegal) practice.

I caught this flavor in your arguments. I don't fault you for it. Its fine to be angry, to an extent. Its not fine to be unreasonable because you're angry.

I've never skimped on GuildWars because i've felt the game earns it. But there's egg on my face right now, and if i knew 3 months ago what i know now, i'd have bought the 30€ one.And if the game lives to see another expansion, unless a lot changes, that's all they'll see from me ever again, the bare minimum.

I don't particularly understand this feeling of indignation that many have over this. I've tried, but I just dont understand it.

[ReaverKane.7598]

@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

Bundles? It's right there in the description, the actual value of the bundle is higher than the gem cost.Gathering tools? Permanent Contracts? Both have actual usability and bring QoL, not just cosmetics. So i'm curious, what metrics did they use to predict sales and establish a price?I'll tell you what: HYPE.

Oh I'm sure hype for the mounts factors in. They'll ride the high while they can, which will generate more sales. The issue is that we assume that the data they look at comes only from what they generate themselves. I'm sure that's included, but I'm also sure they probably look at what other games are doing and what seems to be 'acceptable' there. They all draw off each other, that's absolutely no secret.

Of course you could be absolutely correct and Mo is talking completely out his kitten, and all they did was post the 'common' mount skin prices on a dart board and went with whichever one the dart landed on. That's

entirely

possible. I'd

like

to have a little more faith in them than that.

Well, if they wen't from what other games offer, they're either disingenuous, naive, or incompetent.

I won't necessarily disagree with this if that turns out to be the case. The issue, again, being that we don't know. All the said is

that

they have data, and that it shows 'x, y, z'And yet they won't show us that data, and again, where did that data came from? Because GW2 had no previous comparable item to it to gather data from, and other game's model is entirely different and doesn't apply neither to the role of mounts on GW2, the way they are made, and the level of choice available in the game without premium goods.

And that's also the root of the problem, there are very little to no rewards in-game, and many of the ones that are are basically farms or gold sinks. And even then, there's arguably better options on the gemstore (like legendary armor has been criticized of being uglier and more plain than many outfits and gemstore skins).And when you look at gliders and mount skins, then you can see just how strongly the funnel you into the gemstore. While gliders you have a few nice ones as part of legendary backs, so it lessens the problem, both gliders and mounts have NO in-game reward alternatives (except the aforementioned legendary backs) and in both cases they

severely hindered

the customization of the base item.

"Better" is subjective. As is "not rewarding" Though, I will concur that we have quite a bit in the gemstore compared to what we get in game. I have argued that this has

started

to get better. PoF had more armor sets than HoT for example. We have 2 more datamined (supposedly crafted) weapon sets coming, and it sounds like another armor set. They've stopped putting armor skins in the store, stating those will come to us as in-game rewards now. I'm fine with them sticking outfits in the store, those are "easier to make" per there own words, so I fully expect those more often. Now, I'd like to seem them go back through and add some additional glider skins as in game rewards (since mount skins are the new flavor of the month), as well as some mount skins. However, because these are both ideal items to monetize, I doubt we'll see more than a handful of in-game rewarded skins, ever.

Sure that's subjective, and yet it's still true that disregarding items available on launch, there have been more options added in the gemstore than in-game.Yeah NOW they'll add glider skins as rewards. Sure... Unless they add another Legendary Back (which, unless they're planning on adding a Raid one, i'm sure there won't be) good luck getting any in-game glider rewards when they already moved away from the expansion that was about gliders.

Both base glider and mounts only have one dye channel as to funnel players to the gemstore. And while gliders were somewhat cheap and had the legendary back alternatives, mounts have been released with predatory practices like extremely overpriced ones and lootboxes, and no alternatives.And what's even worse, is that they had 30+ skins ready made, and sold the blandest possible Deluxe edition with no deluxe mount, while at least HoT gave us a kitten glider.

I feel that mount skins were something they had planned in advance on monetizing, where as glider's may have been a bit of an after thought. Considering it was a little bit of time after HoTs launch that we even got the first option.Actually, everything points in the opposite direction. HoT CAME with a glider in the Deluxe Edition, indicating they already had them planned as deluxe items. Also you're wrong in saying they took a while to add extra gliders, the black and white Wings were available as gliders pretty much after launch, and they sold Butterfly Wings pretty much on release as well.While for mounts, not too long before release the word from Arena Net was they hadn't decided how (or if) they'd monetize mounts.

As for the use of the term "predatory," I think all of you are going a bit overboard with that use again. However, you're entitled to your opinion.Well, there's a Senator, or is it a Governor? In Hawaii that agrees that loot boxes are predatory, as does Belgium's government, and possibly others will follow. So yeah, you're getting lonely there mate.

So yeah, i'm pissed that i paid 80€ for the game, and now they want 25€ more for a single mount skin, and the other alternative is exploitative (hopefully soon to be illegal) practice.

I caught this flavor in your arguments. I don't fault you for it. Its fine to be angry, to an extent. Its not fine to be unreasonable because you're angry.I'm not angry AT them because i spent the 80€. I'm angry at MYSELF, i bought it not expecting anything more than what came with it. So i knew when i bought it that i wouldn't get mounts. But at the time, the feedback was "we don't have plans for monetizing mounts".I'm pissed at myself for trusting them.

I've never skimped on GuildWars because i've felt the game earns it. But there's egg on my face right now, and if i knew 3 months ago what i know now, i'd have bought the 30€ one.And if the game lives to see another expansion, unless a lot changes, that's all they'll see from me ever again, the bare minimum.

I don't particularly understand this feeling of indignation that many have over this. I've tried, but I just dont understand it.Well, i'll try to be polite here... If you don't understand this, either you have no idea of the value of time/money, or the realization of how much more content you can get in a 30€ game right now. Or you're being disingenuous. Or have little to no self-respect, and accept everything that Arena Net throws at you. This might be a cultural thing, i guess, where i come from, when someone tries to hoodwink you, overcharge for stuff or generally mistreat or mishandle you, we take it as an insult. Other cultures might be more placid, i guess.And let me be blunt and honest with you. Kissing up to Arena net won't benefit you, the game, or Arena Net.There's already backlash and general dislike for microtransactions and especially RNG based ones. EA lost 3.1 billion USD on account of these practices. Sure Arena net has a smaller following, and it's a segment of the industry that has had microtransactions for longer, but the sentiment is there, the issues are there, and the threat of governments starting to regulate these things is real.And you know what happens if a government starts regulating that? They won't differentiate between MMORPG, Single player, F2P, P2P, or anything, it'll be blanket rules for all. Potentially killing off Arena Net's ability to finance itself.So yeah, lets allow Arena Net to dig themselves into a hole where they can't come out of if the market becomes regulated, or even if a significant portion of the "Whales" move away.

[pah.4931]

Thank GOODNESS what you read on forums is just a tiny, teeny minority of players ... otherwise I have no idea why anyone would WANT to develop video games for people.

"Here's a free game you can play and some stuff you don't need AT ALL that you can buy so we can feed our families..."

"FUCK YOU, GREEDY ASSHOLES!"

Sheesh.

Thanks for making this awesome game, Anet. And thanks making it with a great cash shop! I wish more companies ran their games like you! Keep up the good work!!!

[ReaverKane.7598]

@pah.4931 said:Thank GOODNESS what you read on forums is just a tiny, teeny minority of players ... otherwise I have no idea why anyone would WANT to develop video games for people.

"Here's a free game you can play and some stuff you don't need AT ALL that you can buy so we can feed our families..."

"kitten YOU, GREEDY kitten!"

Sheesh.

Thanks for making this awesome game, Anet. And thanks making it with a great cash shop! I wish more companies ran their games like you! Keep up the good work!!!

Free?LOL, idk about you, but just for the priviledge of playing this game with my brother i'm down 500€ (for me and my brother), and that's not counting Gems.

[Suziana.3759]

I feel like there are a lot of misinformed people on here giving misinformation to the masses. A couple of things I'd like to clarify: Mount skins DO NOT cost $25.00. Sorry. That's a lie. The lowest amount of gems you can purchase in GW2 is 800 for $10 USD.

If the mount costs 2000 gems, that means one would need to purchase 1600 gems for $20 USD and another 800 gems for $10 USD. That would add up to 2400 gems, or $30 USD; but since there is NO OPTION of 400 gems for $5, one is automatically forced to overspend just to buy the mount.

In Canada, $30.00 US converts to $38.00 dollars and change. In Australia, it's about $40.00. Thinking of the mass amount of players who play this game outside the US, I can now begin to sympathize to how unfair $38-$40 dollars sounds to buy one skin. Even though you don't use the whole 2400 gems that $40 buys you, there is no other option to buy the correct amount. I'm not sure if NCSoft still has a stake in ArenaNet (I hope not), but for their other games they have the 400 for $5 option. Not sure why it doesn't exist here. Regardless how you look at it, you're not paying just $25 if you're a US citizen, and you're certainly not paying just $25 dollars if you live anywhere else!

[Leo G.4501]

@Oldirtbeard.9834 said:I posted this elsewhere but I'm too lazy to retype it so I copied it.

My main issue is that MO makes it sound like it's the big ticket spenders bankrolling the content. Where does that leave box buyers that don't buy gem store items is there money not valued, if so make the game F2P. Where does that leave me as someone that spends roughly $100 a month on gems but chooses to not spend it where their projections suggest it should be, does that make my money less appreciated since their marketing doesn't apply to me since I refuse to buy a 2000 gem mount ?

Then the question is, will you buy other stuff they release? I don't think they'd see it as a huge loss that you won't buy a 2000 gem mount (I don't blame you, it doesn't look worth it to me). That's only 2 items out of how many that you'd refuse to buy?

[LanfearShadowflame.3189]

@ReaverKane.7598 said:And yet they won't show us that data, and again, where did that data came from? Because GW2 had no previous comparable item to it to gather data from, and other game's model is entirely different and doesn't apply neither to the role of mounts on GW2, the way they are made, and the level of choice available in the game without premium goods.

I did address this, to an extent. It's their choice whether or not they show it. Like most companies, they aren't going to. You have to take them at face value, or don't. Obviously you don't. Fine.

Sure that's subjective, and yet it's still true that disregarding items available on launch, there have been more options added in the gemstore than in-game.Yeah NOW they'll add glider skins as rewards. Sure... Unless they add another Legendary Back (which, unless they're planning on adding a Raid one, i'm sure there won't be) good luck getting any in-game glider rewards when they already moved away from the expansion that was about gliders.

I didnt say there hadnt been. I concurred that there was more in the store, which was agreeing with you.

Personally, I'd like to see them add additional legendary back items. They were supposed to add new ones to pvp, but have not as yet. Still waiting for that. I'd like to see a new fractal one and another for wvw, and a couple for raids as well. I know that takes time though.

Well, there's a Senator, or is it a Governor? In Hawaii that agrees that loot boxes are predatory, as does Belgium's government, and possibly others will follow. So yeah, you're getting lonely there mate.

Either ALL marketing is predatory, or none of it is. ALL marketing is directly targeting someone with the intent to incite them to purchase an item. Potentially an item they may not have otherwise purchased or more of it if its something they would generally buy. So it's all or none.

We weren't discussing loot boxes, we were discussing a set price mount skin and whether or not it was too high. Which is not a loot box. Loot boxes are another topic entirely and that's a wonderful assumption you just made there. Get. off. your. horse.

I'm not angry AT them because i spent the 80€. I'm angry at MYSELF, i bought it not expecting anything more than what came with it. So i knew when i bought it that i wouldn't get mounts. But at the time, the feedback was "we don't have plans for monetizing mounts".I'm pissed at myself for trusting them.

We all figured they would monetize mounts. I don't recall the statement about not having plans for it, but its highly possible they didn't have plans "at the time." But I'm pretty sure we all knew it was coming. Sooner rather than later apparently. We flat out told them on the forums that they would be foolish not to monetize mount skins. None of us figured they'd be that price though. We figured they'd be on par, or slightly more than glider skins. Which, for the 'normal' ones, that does actually hold true. (RNG aside, again, different topic)

Well, i'll try to be polite here... If you don't understand this, either you have no idea of the value of time/money, or the realization of how much more content you can get in a 30€ game right now. Or you're being disingenuous. Or have little to no self-respect, and accept everything that Arena Net throws at you. This might be a cultural thing, i guess, where i come from, when someone tries to hoodwink you, overcharge for stuff or generally mistreat or mishandle you, we take it as an insult. Other cultures might be more placid, i guess.

Or maybe I just look at it differently. I grew up poor. I understand quite well the feeling of "wanting" something and not being able to have it because you can't afford it. Not just 'luxury' items, but 'necessities.' To never have new clothes because actual new clothes are too expensive, so you make due with handy me downs from older sisters, and when those no longer fit, the cheapest fitting items from a second hand shop. "Be happy with what you have" is something I heard a lot.

I understand the concept of time and money quite well. As well as hard work and dedication. In the grand scheme of things, this is nothing. It's a piece of digital art that I don't even own come the day that I stop playing GW2. Given the money I've actually sank into actual p2w games, I regret that far more than any purchase I've ever made in this game.

Do I want the pretty? Sure I do.Can I afford it? Yes, not an issue.Do I think it's absolutely overpriced? Yes. As such I won't buy it. Others will. Hooray for them.Would I like to see it at a lower price point? Of course, but that's not my decision to make. We'll see what they put it at when they put it on sale.Is it going to be the end of my world or break my heart not to have it? Nope, absolutely not.

Will I continue to buy other items from the gemstore that I like and feel have an acceptable gem value? Absolutely. I enjoy the game. Anet makes missteps on occasion, but I don't know any business that hasn't.

And let me be blunt and honest with you. Kissing up to Arena net won't benefit you, the game, or Arena Net.

Kissing up to? I've voiced my dislike for an assortment of things time and again. (Hell, Ive stated repeatedly that I think these are overpriced) I've also expressed my understand of why certain choices were made, regardless of whether or not I liked them. I have called this company down more than once; conversely I have defended it against the butt hurt as well. They are far from perfect. They aren't always right, but they are a business first and foremost. Beyond that, the individuals are just that... individuals and don't deserve a lot of the crap thrown at them them as they aren't the one's making the decisions that cause so many to be up in arms.

There's already backlash and general dislike for microtransactions and especially RNG based ones. EA lost 3.1 billion USD on account of these practices. Sure Arena net has a smaller following, and it's a segment of the industry that has had microtransactions for longer, but the sentiment is there, the issues are there, and the threat of governments starting to regulate these things is real.And you know what happens if a government starts regulating that? They won't differentiate between MMORPG, Single player, F2P, P2P, or anything, it'll be blanket rules for all. Potentially killing off Arena Net's ability to finance itself.

As with any regulations, there would be things those that rely on the regulated item can do and things they can't. If / when that day comes, an assessment would need to be made (actually if it looks like such would happen, the assessment by the company would happen well before anything was passed so they could plan, but you get the idea. I wouldn't be surprised if Anet had alternatives for just such a scenario already). It could kill GW2. It could require them to tack on a sub fee. It could end up creating a VIP system of sorts. They might start making the LS seasons available only via purchase, no more free episodes. They might up the box prices of expansions and put out more of them with less content due to time constraints. There are a lot of 'what ifs' and 'maybes'. None of which we'd really know the final answer to unless such came to pass.

[Loosifah.4738]

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@pah.4931 said:Thank GOODNESS what you read on forums is just a tiny, teeny minority of players ... otherwise I have no idea why anyone would WANT to develop video games for people.

"Here's a free game you can play and some stuff you don't need AT ALL that you can buy so we can feed our families..."

"kitten YOU, GREEDY kitten!"

Sheesh.

Thanks for making this awesome game, Anet. And thanks making it with a great cash shop! I wish more companies ran their games like you! Keep up the good work!!!

Free?LOL, idk about you, but just for the priviledge of playing this game with my brother i'm down 500€ (for me and my brother), and that's not counting Gems.

500€ just to play the game? Even if both you and your brother bought the $100 copies of GW2 and HoT, plus the $60 copy of PoF that's nowhere near 500 pounds. And if you did do that; that was your decision to pay for the premium content + gems.

[Rococo.8347]

@Leo G.4501 said:

@Rococo.8347 said:I know some people clutch their pearls when people start talking about qualitative data and get all angry and start yelling about 'people making assumptions!' but that sort of data can have a lot of truth to it...its certainly given respect in many social sciences.

Ever since the mounts came out I have seen two of the expensive mounts - im sat at Lions Arch, and all the other major cities, plus the pvp area, im also usually at whatever map is the current daily events, I do world bosses.

Conversely EVERY time a new glider came out I saw them everywhere - so im having a hard time believing that Mo has this right on the whole, 'glitzy expensive ones make us cash money' especially when he states that they 'have the stats' - when in reality they don't, not for 2000 gem mounts because he stated this only just after the first mount of that type - he may have OTHER stats if 'similar prestige' type items but he does not have the stats for this type of sale.

It's also possible that things are skewed because they've only released 2 of the premium mounts. What people ride on in LA may just be their preferred mount which just may not be either jackal or raptor.

You really believe that someone would pay £25 for a mount skin and then NOT have it displayed in Cities/pvp/popular maps?? that's really not thinking it through lol - I DID see a fair amount of people with the Gryphon skin that you can dye in lurid ways over time - but yes sure people buy premiere skins and then don't display them...

[IndigoSundown.5419]

@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

As for the use of the term "predatory," I think all of you are going a bit overboard with that use again. However, you're entitled to your opinion.

There is linguistic justification for using the word predatory to describe random container sales techniques.

predatory: adj; seeking to exploit or oppress others

Random container sales do exploit. They do not oppress, but the use of "or" in the definition means the term applies if either qualifier is present.

exploit: verb; make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource)

Random container sales are designed to get consumers to spend more money than they would for a desired item were the price known. That qualifies for "make full use of" because some consumers are highly likely to spend more than the market would bear to get a given item. The applicability of "derive benefit from" is obvious.

While I could see someone wanting to apply the term "predatory " to "over"-priced items, I don't think the same linguistic justifications apply.

[ReaverKane.7598]

@Loosifah.4738 said:

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@pah.4931 said:Thank GOODNESS what you read on forums is just a tiny, teeny minority of players ... otherwise I have no idea why anyone would WANT to develop video games for people.

"Here's a free game you can play and some stuff you don't need AT ALL that you can buy so we can feed our families..."

"kitten YOU, GREEDY kitten!"

Sheesh.

Thanks for making this awesome game, Anet. And thanks making it with a great cash shop! I wish more companies ran their games like you! Keep up the good work!!!

Free?LOL, idk about you, but just for the priviledge of playing this game with my brother i'm down 500€ (for me and my brother), and that's not counting Gems.

500€ just to play the game? Even if both you and your brother bought the $100 copies of GW2 and HoT, plus the $60 copy of PoF that's nowhere near 500 pounds. And if you did do that; that was your decision to pay for the premium content + gems.

Well... 75€ for GW2 Core Deluxe Edition + ~100 (not sure the correct price, but it was on those levels) for HoT Ultimate + 80 for PoF Ultimate = 255€ x 2 = 510€Quick Maffs...I'm not saying i didn't HAVE to pay, i'm just saying it's hardly free.Even if i had paid the bare minimum prices it would have been 130€ each. I'm not saying it's expensive for 5 years of gaming... Just saying IT'S NOT FREE! Which was your comment.

PS: Oh, i just realized you're probably not that cultured and don't know the difference between £ and €. First is Pounds, the second is Euros.

[LanfearShadowflame.3189]

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

As for the use of the term "predatory," I think all of you are going a bit overboard with that use again. However, you're entitled to your opinion.

There is linguistic justification for using the word predatory to describe random container sales techniques.

predatory: adj; seeking to exploit or oppress others

Random container sales do exploit. They do not oppress, but the use of "or" in the definition means the term applies if either qualifier is present.

exploit: verb; make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource)

Random container sales are designed to get consumers to spend more money than they would for a desired item were the price known. That qualifies for "make full use of" because some consumers are highly likely to spend more than the market would bear to get a given item. The applicability of "derive benefit from" is obvious.

While I could see someone wanting to apply the term "predatory " to "over"-priced items, I don't think the same linguistic justifications apply.

All marketing is "exploitive." It is intentionally designed to incite you into a purchase as I said in my other post. That's the whole point of the existence of marketing. To analyze and improve on the techniques used to trigger a consumer into a purchase.

I can understand, to an extent, why people apply the term to Adoption licenses, but that's not what was being discussed here. At least originally. Yet somehow that's what we've strayed into, yet again.

[Rococo.8347]

@Deathanizer.3716 said:Is it just me or did Mike just basically say that Microtransactions aren't working?

If a big Microtransaction catalog isn't working anymore why don't you just raise the price of the expansion?

I mean, you just said it. Nobody buys separate things, they only buy big packs of things. T H E N W H A T I S T H E P O I N T O F M I C R O T R A N S A C T I O N S ?

That does seem to be what he is saying doesn't it? it means that the glider skins didn't work I assume because 500-700 gems is way to small a price for them to make money of it right /s? It means that they have made barely any money off the Gem store in the last 5 years up until now except for the massive MACRO transaction offers such as big bundles or flashy outfits ( which incidentally go for alot less that a mount skin at 2000) it means that the molten asteroid glider for example wasn't remotely glitzy and 'big ticket ' looking because it didn't have a 'big ticket' price according to his logic.

As soon as you apply some deeper critical thinking to what he is saying none of it makes much sense I feel.

Im just completely sick of buying expansions and then being expected to pony up for things that should have been included in game - i really don't like being sold a DLC when i expected an expansion and yes i would have paid more, charging less is on them, going free on vanilla is on them.

The thing that sticks in my craw most are these sorts of ideas: 'only these sort of sales keep our game alive' , 'we are justified in eliminating any items in game that can be monetised for whales' 'anyone who isn't a whale is no longer our target audience'

I buy your game and yet you don't want to please me or encourage me to part with reasonable additional costs with small actual micro transactions? what sort of Capitalism is this!? why cant you do BOTH? provide for the whales AND people like me with less cash to splash?

[Leo G.4501]

@Rococo.8347 said:I buy your game and yet you don't want to please me or encourage me to part with reasonable additional costs with small actual micro transactions? what sort of Capitalism is this!? why cant you do BOTH? provide for the whales AND people like me with less cash to splash?

They probably will? If we're talking about mount skins here, I'd say just give it some time. Likely, for the holidays, more skins will be released (in what format is yet to be seen) along side some 2000 gem skin.

What I don't get though, is that the adoption licenses are cheap as kitten! A skin for 400! You can get a skin a week if you set aside a bit of time to farm.

Something WP mentioned on one of his Q&A videos was that, had these adoption licenses just been an in-game vendored item that cost the equivalent of 400 gems in gold, likely there would have been very few complaints (or at the very least, most of the complaining would be aimed at particular skins, not the method of acquisition).

If this isn't about mount skins, then I'd have to say just look through the gem store. There's plenty of stuff people can buy with less cash to splash.

[Leo G.4501]

@Rococo.8347 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@Rococo.8347 said:I know some people clutch their pearls when people start talking about qualitative data and get all angry and start yelling about 'people making assumptions!' but that sort of data can have a lot of truth to it...its certainly given respect in many social sciences.

Ever since the mounts came out I have seen two of the expensive mounts - im sat at Lions Arch, and all the other major cities, plus the pvp area, im also usually at whatever map is the current daily events, I do world bosses.

Conversely EVERY time a new glider came out I saw them everywhere - so im having a hard time believing that Mo has this right on the whole, 'glitzy expensive ones make us cash money' especially when he states that they 'have the stats' - when in reality they don't, not for 2000 gem mounts because he stated this only just after the first mount of that type - he may have OTHER stats if 'similar prestige' type items but he does not have the stats for this type of sale.

It's also possible that things are skewed because they've only released 2 of the premium mounts. What people ride on in LA may just be their preferred mount which just may not be either jackal or raptor.

You really believe that someone would pay £25 for a mount skin and then NOT have it displayed in Cities/pvp/popular maps?? that's really not thinking it through lol - I DID see a fair amount of people with the Gryphon skin that you can dye in lurid ways over time - but yes sure people buy premiere skins and then don't display them...

Lol what is it with people trying to insult at every turn? I'm not thinking it through lol?

What I'm saying can encompass the whole spectrum, from those whales that collect them all (I saw the forged jackal on the 1st day before I even knew there were new mount skins available! Doesn't mean they are going to ride it all the time weeks later) to those that didn't buy but would have if they liked the mount (I'm waiting to see what they have to offer for premium Springer and skimmer).

As for the glider, yeah, it was because they were cheap af. But still didn't seem to get them much profit, apparently. I know I didn't waste my time with gliders.

[Ohoni.6057]

@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

As for the use of the term "predatory," I think all of you are going a bit overboard with that use again. However, you're entitled to your opinion.

There is linguistic justification for using the word predatory to describe random container sales techniques.

predatory: adj; seeking to exploit or oppress others

Random container sales do exploit. They do not oppress, but the use of "or" in the definition means the term applies if either qualifier is present.

exploit: verb; make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource)

Random container sales are designed to get consumers to spend more money than they would for a desired item were the price known. That qualifies for "make full use of" because some consumers are highly likely to spend more than the market would bear to get a given item. The applicability of "derive benefit from" is obvious.

While I could see someone wanting to apply the term "predatory " to "over"-priced items, I don't think the same linguistic justifications apply.

All marketing is "exploitive." It is intentionally designed to incite you into a purchase as I said in my other post. That's the whole point of the existence of marketing. To analyze and improve on the techniques used to trigger a consumer into a purchase.

I can understand, to an extent, why people apply the term to Adoption licenses, but that's not what was being discussed here. At least originally. Yet somehow that's what we've strayed into, yet again.

Here's the thing though, I have a massive aversion to being "sold" on anything. It makes my skin crawl. I spend money on things when I think they have earned it, and when they seem to be asking nicely. I slam my wallet shut when I feel that I'm being tricked or coerced into a purchase, when they make it "too good to pass up," or when they make it intentionally unintuitive or complicated. You give me ten fair deals on things I'd want adding up to $100 and I'll buy every one of them, you offer me one slime-covered corrupt bargain that costs $25 and I'll refuse every time (or at the very least be less likely to pick up the next thing in the line).

I've spent more than $25 on games that I've never even installed before, it's not the money itself that bothers me, it's that feeling of fairness, of respect for me as a customer, that a lot of their recent moves seem to be lacking (not that the rest of the industry hasn't been even worse).