Ugh... overpriced skins

[Leo G.4501]

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@ReaverKane.7598 said:If it was their lifeline they'd do the math and realize that selling 1000 skins for 1000 gems is better than 100 skins for 2000.

I'm still unsure about that. Those 1000 skins for 1000 gems...how many of those are going to be purchased with straight cash? I understand that someone has to purchase the gems in the 1st place, but it's not an equivalent 1-to-1 trade, it's a currency exchange and you could be swapping for gems that were purchased weeks or months ago (example for visualization purposes).

I think the reason they decided to put higher priced items up is because they don't need slight upward trends in revenue, they need spikes. Not only is there no guarantee that that many people will purchase the 1000 gem mount skin, but there's also no guarantee they will drop cash for it or exchange it for gold. Every purchase made with gold exchanged doesn't actually change how much revenue they make that month and when you're in aggressive markets like gaming where you'll feel those corporate vice grips tightening on your kitten every time you don't make that quarter's goal, you need some options.

Dude... ALL gems but the ones you get on the x5000 Achievement points are purchased with real cash.

Did I not already say that?

My point was trying to differentiate between small and large purchases. If the price of the item is high, the likelihood of a player spending the time to farm gold to exchange for gems lower (they may consider saving themselves the days/weeks of grinding and pay cash) but if the price is low, dropping some gold quickly for those gems is higher since it wouldn't take that long to farm.

The difference? If you're just swapping gold for gems, those gems could have been paid for last week or last month. Basically, it will influence the gold to gem ratio more than Anet's revenue for the month. If the price is higher, both the gold to gems and monthly revenue are affected.

For a more simpler example, sure you can get rich by saving many pennies over time, but you can make far more money investing larger sums of money in the stock market. But anet doesn't have long periods of time to save pennies, they have quarterly quotas.

[ReaverKane.7598]

@Leo G.4501 said:

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@ReaverKane.7598 said:If it was their lifeline they'd do the math and realize that selling 1000 skins for 1000 gems is better than 100 skins for 2000.

I'm still unsure about that. Those 1000 skins for 1000 gems...how many of those are going to be purchased with straight cash? I understand that someone has to purchase the gems in the 1st place, but it's not an equivalent 1-to-1 trade, it's a currency exchange and you could be swapping for gems that were purchased weeks or months ago (example for visualization purposes).

I think the reason they decided to put higher priced items up is because they don't need slight upward trends in revenue, they need spikes. Not only is there no guarantee that that many people will purchase the 1000 gem mount skin, but there's also no guarantee they will drop cash for it or exchange it for gold. Every purchase made with gold exchanged doesn't actually change how much revenue they make that month and when you're in aggressive markets like gaming where you'll feel those corporate vice grips tightening on your kitten every time you don't make that quarter's goal, you need some options.

Dude... ALL gems but the ones you get on the x5000 Achievement points are purchased with real cash.

Did I not already say that?

My point was trying to differentiate between small and large purchases. If the price of the item is high, the likelihood of a player spending the time to farm gold to exchange for gems lower (they may consider saving themselves the days/weeks of grinding and pay cash) but if the price is low, dropping some gold quickly for those gems is higher since it wouldn't take that long to farm.

The difference? If you're just swapping gold for gems, those gems could have been paid for last week or last month. Basically, it will influence the gold to gem ratio more than Anet's revenue for the month. If the price is higher, both the gold to gems and monthly revenue are affected.

For a more simpler example, sure you can get rich by saving many pennies over time, but you can make far more money investing larger sums of money in the stock market. But anet doesn't have long periods of time to save pennies, they have quarterly quotas.

You understand that for Arena Net the gem-to-gold ratio has no actual effect, right? Gems are bought they got their revenue, the rest is just mechanics to keep people buying.Actually, i like your comparison to stock market, because, investing large sums of money there carries the risk that you'll end up poor and broke. And that's pretty much the risk Arena Net took. The wanted to sell skins that were twice as expensive as previous available items. And the result is that they arguably sold *way less than they would if it was more in line with other prices.It doesn't even require having access to their sales results to see the obvious. I mean even with all the rage and controversy about RNG mounts you can't go anywhere without spotting one. The same thing for Wintersday and Halloween mounts (all items within old skin price ranges, even with the negative effect of lack of choice in both). Now for you to spot one of the 2000 Gems mounts its kind of an event. You rarely ever see one.You can also see that it backfired because after 2 launches at 2000 gems, they're now selling them "discounted" to 1600. I'm waiting to see how long it takes that they "discount" them to 1200. They already realized their error, and are correcting surreptitiously, so as not to confirm the dishonesty of MO's statements.

Also, a lot of people don't farm 250g for the Griffon. Much less twice that for a skin for the griffon.This is a matter of intrinsic value. If every other skin is priced in the 400-1000 gem range. People will generally not buy a 2000 gem skin, because the price exceeds its intrinsic value within its context. It's as simple as that.

[Broski.6209]

Ghastly Grinning Shield is worth over $115 USD. Pricey af but at the same time kinda worth because it's from the first halloween event and is SMEXY

[Leo G.4501]

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@Leo G.4501 said:

@ReaverKane.7598 said:If it was their lifeline they'd do the math and realize that selling 1000 skins for 1000 gems is better than 100 skins for 2000.

I'm still unsure about that. Those 1000 skins for 1000 gems...how many of those are going to be purchased with straight cash? I understand that someone has to purchase the gems in the 1st place, but it's not an equivalent 1-to-1 trade, it's a currency exchange and you could be swapping for gems that were purchased weeks or months ago (example for visualization purposes).

I think the reason they decided to put higher priced items up is because they don't need slight upward trends in revenue, they need spikes. Not only is there no guarantee that that many people will purchase the 1000 gem mount skin, but there's also no guarantee they will drop cash for it or exchange it for gold. Every purchase made with gold exchanged doesn't actually change how much revenue they make that month and when you're in aggressive markets like gaming where you'll feel those corporate vice grips tightening on your kitten every time you don't make that quarter's goal, you need some options.

Dude... ALL gems but the ones you get on the x5000 Achievement points are purchased with real cash.

Did I not already say that?

My point was trying to differentiate between small and large purchases. If the price of the item is high, the likelihood of a player spending the time to farm gold to exchange for gems lower (they may consider saving themselves the days/weeks of grinding and pay cash) but if the price is low, dropping some gold quickly for those gems is higher since it wouldn't take that long to farm.

The difference? If you're just swapping gold for gems, those gems could have been paid for last week or last month. Basically, it will influence the gold to gem ratio more than Anet's revenue for the month. If the price is higher, both the gold to gems and monthly revenue are affected.

For a more simpler example, sure you can get rich by saving many pennies over time, but you can make far more money investing larger sums of money in the stock market. But anet doesn't have long periods of time to save pennies, they have quarterly quotas.

You understand that for Arena Net the gem-to-gold ratio has no actual effect, right? Gems are bought they got their revenue, the rest is just mechanics to keep people buying.

Yes, I understand that, but a good parallel is like if there were premium subscribers. Yes, anet automatically get their revenue from people just buying gems, a general "guaranteed" amount of profit a month. But they aren't going to stay afloat with just premium subscribers numbers. They need micro transactions too. If players aren't actually buying more gems to get stuff rather than just trading for gems from "premium subscribers" they aren't actually making more money with their gamble. What I'm saying is, they likely wouldn't have made more by selling the mounts cheap... I'm also not saying the price of those mounts is right either, but there is no right and wrong here, just profits or losses.

Actually, i like your comparison to stock market, because, investing large sums of money there carries the risk that you'll end up poor and broke.

The analogy can only go as far as comparing profit to the amount invested (small monies make small profits, large monies make large profits). Beyond that, the analogy breaks because they don't actually lose anything if something on the gem store doesn't sell. They have full control of it's prices and the resources involved in creating them are a super tiny fraction of the profit they make (I bet the mounts have already paid for themselves multi fold, but that isn't enough to keep the entire game afloat!).

I suppose if we're focused on the ultimate success of a particular item in the gem store rather than Anet's overall goals , you're right, they didn't sell as many if it were cheaper. But looking at the long game, it's too soon to really say. I haven't bought any of the exclusive skins, not because of the price, but because I didn't like the looks. I am eagerly awaiting what's in store for the Springer.

[Leo G.4501]

PS: also, just wanted to say, your conclusion about investing larger sums in stocks can leave you broke only works if you put that larger sum into fewer stocks. Obviously you will always make more money with a larger amount of seed money AND wisely invest it i.e. into more than a couple of venues. Again, the analogy breaks because I don't believe anet put their entire lifeblood into these premium mount skins.

[Leo G.4501]

Meant to edit a previous post...

[JaddynnStarr.5201]

this is what you get when you give into the mentality of it being "just a few dollars here and there".... slippery slope is slippery cuz well.... its SLIPPERY, and they have slipped over the edge into loot crates. GJ folks. but hey.... its just a few bucks right?

[ReaverKane.7598]

@Leo G.4501 said:PS: also, just wanted to say, your conclusion about investing larger sums in stocks can leave you broke only works if you put that larger sum into fewer stocks. Obviously you will always make more money with a larger amount of seed money AND wisely invest it i.e. into more than a couple of venues. Again, the analogy breaks because I don't believe anet put their entire lifeblood into these premium mount skins.

Well, if you believe in their statment, not selling mount skins will make it impossible for them to keep developing the game.