So I guess a launch discount for the horribly overpriced mount skins is no more?

[Randulf.7614]

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Randulf.7614 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

Mountfit prices since their introduction:

• Spooky Halloween 5-pack: 2000 gems
• Mount Adoption License, aka Random Selection out of 30: 400 for one, 10 for 3400, 30 for 9800.
• Reforged Warhound: 2000 gems (discounted to 1600 introductory price)
• Resplendent Avialan: 2000 gems (discounted to 1600 introductory price)
• Cozy Wintersday 5-pack: 2000 gems
• Umbral Demon Skimmer: 1600 gems (
  discounted to 1600 introductory price
  )
• Summit Chevon Springer Skin: 2000 gems (no introductory discount)

(Did I miss any? Make a mistake in price? I'll update the list accordingly.)

The Halloween and Wintersday were both 1600 gems

Ah right, they are 2000 gems, but both were discounted to 1600. I'll fix it. Thank you.

The Warhound and Availan were 2000 without discount. According to wiki only the skimmer was ever discounted

[ReaverKane.7598]

@"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@"Scarlett.1605" said:I like the new springer skin, the goatzelle look is pretty unique I think.

It's a Horned Kangaroo, not a goat, not a gazelle... It's a Kangaroo with horns...

That is definitely a goat head. And gazelle horns.Mount (from Dulfy)

http://dulfy.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/gw2-summit-chevon-springer-2.jpg

Goat:

Kangaroo:

Definitely not a Goat Head, but a Kangaroo Head, with Horns.

@STIHL.2489 said:

@Randulf.7614 said:It's an excellent skin, but at 2000 gems, I'm not touching it. This means buying 2400 at £30 to get it and I'm not paying nearly the same price for the expansion for one skin for a relatively niche mount.

I'd potentially use gold - gems if it was a permanent addition to the store, but it'll be gone no doubt in a couple of weeks, so that rules that out for me.

Kudos to the designers who worked on it, but it's very much overpriced

I just paid 1800 gems to change servers.. spare me its too much for the skin..It is too much for the skin, also server change prices should be triple the current to punish bandwagoning.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@Randulf.7614 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Randulf.7614 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

Mountfit prices since their introduction:

• Spooky Halloween 5-pack: 2000 gems
• Mount Adoption License, aka Random Selection out of 30: 400 for one, 10 for 3400, 30 for 9800.
• Reforged Warhound: 2000 gems (discounted to 1600 introductory price)
• Resplendent Avialan: 2000 gems (discounted to 1600 introductory price)
• Cozy Wintersday 5-pack: 2000 gems
• Umbral Demon Skimmer: 1600 gems (
  discounted to 1600 introductory price
  )
• Summit Chevon Springer Skin: 2000 gems (no introductory discount)

(Did I miss any? Make a mistake in price? I'll update the list accordingly.)

The Halloween and Wintersday were both 1600 gems

Ah right, they are 2000 gems, but both were discounted to 1600. I'll fix it. Thank you.

The Warhound and Availan were 2000 without discount. According to wiki only the skimmer was ever discounted

The wiki... is inconsistent about the amounts it lists. For the Spooky pack, it shows the only price we've ever seen (1600), but BLTC listed that as a 20% discount. For the Cozy, the wiki lists it as 2000, a price that we never saw (but is the accurate retail price, per the BLTC).

I double-checked the singleton skin prices at the Gemstore offerings thread (thanks to @Astral Projections.7320) to confirm your memory of Avialan & Warhound Mountfit pricing (2000 gems). My apologies for my bad memory.

[Randulf.7614]

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Randulf.7614 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Randulf.7614 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

Mountfit prices since their introduction:

• Spooky Halloween 5-pack: 2000 gems
• Mount Adoption License, aka Random Selection out of 30: 400 for one, 10 for 3400, 30 for 9800.
• Reforged Warhound: 2000 gems (discounted to 1600 introductory price)
• Resplendent Avialan: 2000 gems (discounted to 1600 introductory price)
• Cozy Wintersday 5-pack: 2000 gems
• Umbral Demon Skimmer: 1600 gems (
  discounted to 1600 introductory price
  )
• Summit Chevon Springer Skin: 2000 gems (no introductory discount)

(Did I miss any? Make a mistake in price? I'll update the list accordingly.)

The Halloween and Wintersday were both 1600 gems

Ah right, they are 2000 gems, but both were discounted to 1600. I'll fix it. Thank you.

The Warhound and Availan were 2000 without discount. According to wiki only the skimmer was ever discounted

The wiki... is inconsistent about the amounts it lists. For the Spooky pack, it shows the only price we've ever seen (1600), but BLTC listed that as a 20% discount. For the Cozy, the

wiki lists it as 2000

,

a price that we never saw

(but is the accurate retail price, per the BLTC).

I double-checked the singleton skin prices at the

Gemstore offerings thread

(thanks to @Astral Projections.7320) to confirm your memory of Avialan (2000 gems). My apologies for my bad memory.

I may forgive you....given time

[Wolfheart.7483]

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@"Scarlett.1605" said:I like the new springer skin, the goatzelle look is pretty unique I think.

It's a Horned Kangaroo, not a goat, not a gazelle... It's a Kangaroo with horns...

That is definitely a goat head. And gazelle horns.Mount (from Dulfy)

http://dulfy.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/gw2-summit-chevon-springer-2.jpg

Goat:

Kangaroo:

Definitely not a Goat Head, but a Kangaroo Head, with Horns.

It's a goat head. The name of the skin literally implies that it's a goat.

[ReaverKane.7598]

@Wolfheart.7483 said:

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@"Scarlett.1605" said:I like the new springer skin, the goatzelle look is pretty unique I think.

It's a Horned Kangaroo, not a goat, not a gazelle... It's a Kangaroo with horns...

That is definitely a goat head. And gazelle horns.Mount (from Dulfy)

http://dulfy.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/gw2-summit-chevon-springer-2.jpg

Goat:

Kangaroo:

Definitely not a Goat Head, but a Kangaroo Head, with Horns.

It's a goat head. The name of the skin literally implies that it's a goat.

The name implies goat, i'm aware!But the head is that of a Kangaroo.. Sorry man... My grandma and aunts bred goats for a long time. It's not a goat.Look at the images.

[Einlanzer.1627]

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Scarlett.1605 said:I like the new springer skin, the goatzelle look is pretty unique I think.

Yeah, I like it too, but it isn't worth $25. And trying to get away with charging that much, especially when they're doing it regularly for new skins that can't even be exclusively used because of the design of the mount system, is going to drive a lot of people out instead of incentivizing them to continue.

It really couldn't be any clearer that Anet doesn't really know what they're doing.

On the contrary, Mike O'Brien explained exactly why they have priced Mountfits at 1600-2000 gems each: they generate more cash flow by offering premium items at premium prices than they do by offering a higher number of more affordable options. The prices are too rich for my blood (and, as I've said elsewhere, they did a poor job of setting our expectations about the new prices), but then again, you & I aren't the intended audience for these offers.

But they aren't premium items, and his reasoning his flawed. Don't assume he knows what he's talking about just because he's a CEO. I have enough experience in the business world to know that human nature is just faking knowledge through posturing.

[Oglaf.1074]

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@"Scarlett.1605" said:I like the new springer skin, the goatzelle look is pretty unique I think.

Yeah, I like it too, but it isn't worth $25. And trying to get away with charging that much, especially when they're doing it regularly for new skins that can't even be exclusively used because of the design of the mount system, is going to drive a lot of people out instead of incentivizing them to continue.

It really couldn't be any clearer that Anet doesn't really know what they're doing.

On the contrary, Mike O'Brien explained exactly why they have priced Mountfits at 1600-2000 gems each: they generate more cash flow by offering premium items at premium prices than they do by offering a higher number of more affordable options. The prices are too rich for my blood (and, as I've said elsewhere, they did a poor job of setting our expectations about the new prices), but then again, you & I aren't the intended audience for these offers.

But they aren't premium items, and his reasoning his flawed. Don't assume he knows what he's talking about just because he's a CEO. I have enough experience in the business world to know that human nature is just faking knowledge through posturing.

No, his reasoning is perfect.

Look up the term "whales" in terms of a freemium economy.

[Zionka.6897]

it also has hooves on it's feet :) I'd actually consider buying it if I only used springer more. It's a great skin, and I like that it's not "cutesy".. But I only bring out the springer for when it's needed for a jump, then get right back on my griff.. so other than sitting around town to look cool, I can't justify 2k gems

[Kako.1930]

I'm part of the group that thinks the new Springer is nice but not worth 2,000 gems. I bought the Halloween 5 pack and I think that'll be the only one I invest in, unless they come out with a better looking 5 pack for 1,600 gems. I thought 1,600 gems for all 5 was a lot, too, at the time...

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@"Scarlett.1605" said:I like the new springer skin, the goatzelle look is pretty unique I think.

Yeah, I like it too, but it isn't worth $25. And trying to get away with charging that much, especially when they're doing it regularly for new skins that can't even be exclusively used because of the design of the mount system, is going to drive a lot of people out instead of incentivizing them to continue.

It really couldn't be any clearer that Anet doesn't really know what they're doing.

On the contrary, Mike O'Brien explained exactly why they have priced Mountfits at 1600-2000 gems each: they generate more cash flow by offering premium items at premium prices than they do by offering a higher number of more affordable options. The prices are too rich for my blood (and, as I've said elsewhere, they did a poor job of setting our expectations about the new prices), but then again, you & I aren't the intended audience for these offers.

But they aren't premium items, and his reasoning his flawed. Don't assume he knows what he's talking about just because he's a CEO. I have enough experience in the business world to know that human nature is just faking knowledge through posturing.

I'm not assuming he knows what he talks about; I'm just assuming that he posted his explanation in these very forums and on Reddit. You can disagree with his definition of "premium" and you can disagree with his reasoning. Without seeing the actual data, neither of us can tell if Anet made the decision that will result in the steadiest, strongest long-term income for the game. And I hope you can understand that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that it might be worth paying attention to the words of a CEO of a successful business in a highly competitive, expensive, and failure-prone market.

[Leo G.4501]

My opinion: I didn't want any of the other mounts. 2000 gems was too much for them... But really, so would 1000 gems. They'd have had to drop the price of those exclusive mounts to around 700 gems for me to think about throwing some gems away... And I likely would have still been choosy if which skin I'd pick.

Since I didn't spend anything on those other skins, I saved for several weeks ( already had the gems lying around for the holiday skins) in anticipation of what was in store for the Springer. So to me, it's not 2000 gems for each skin but 2000 gems for the one skin you really wanted to spend the money on. Still, it's a gamble because I could really like the exclusive griffon mount and not have any disposable cash ready for it like I do with this skin.

[LadyRhonwyn.2501]

@"Zionka.6897" said:it also has hooves on it's feet :) I'd actually consider buying it if I only used springer more. It's a great skin, and I like that it's not "cutesy".. But I only bring out the springer for when it's needed for a jump, then get right back on my griff.. so other than sitting around town to look cool, I can't justify 2k gems

Actually, the springer is the one I mostly use, but I still won't be paying 2000 gems for it. 500-600 is my absolute maximum per skin.

[ReaverKane.7598]

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@"Scarlett.1605" said:I like the new springer skin, the goatzelle look is pretty unique I think.

Yeah, I like it too, but it isn't worth $25. And trying to get away with charging that much, especially when they're doing it regularly for new skins that can't even be exclusively used because of the design of the mount system, is going to drive a lot of people out instead of incentivizing them to continue.

It really couldn't be any clearer that Anet doesn't really know what they're doing.

On the contrary, Mike O'Brien explained exactly why they have priced Mountfits at 1600-2000 gems each: they generate more cash flow by offering premium items at premium prices than they do by offering a higher number of more affordable options. The prices are too rich for my blood (and, as I've said elsewhere, they did a poor job of setting our expectations about the new prices), but then again, you & I aren't the intended audience for these offers.

But they aren't premium items, and his reasoning his flawed. Don't assume he knows what he's talking about just because he's a CEO. I have enough experience in the business world to know that human nature is just faking knowledge through posturing.

No, his reasoning is perfect.

Look up the term "whales" in terms of a freemium economy.

It's not... Google Scale Economy.Whales work for stuff like black lion keys, and the sort. Stuff that can be bought over and over.As for mounts, it's one time purchase. "Whales" by definition are a small percentage of the community.Selling an item for 2000 gems to 10% of the community will generate less income than selling the same item for 1000 gems to 30% of the community.MO spoke without actual data to back him up. Sure he generates more money from selling more expensive items that get lots of purchases vs much cheaper items that get simmilar numbers.But at the time of Arena Net deciding to push mount skins for 2000 gems, they had sold exactly NOTHING that was a single item at that same price. The closest thing was Cosmetic Bundles (that they themselves claim are worth closer to 3000 gems than 2000), and Gathering tool bundles.Otherwise, the most expensive cosmetic single items were all at 800 gems.They banked on hype, it backfired, and now they're keeping the current prices simply out of sheer posturing, because otherwise it will confirm that MO was dishonest.

I mean, their actions just confirm this. Look at the garden patch: It costs

HALF

of a mount skin, and yet it's an item that provides actual monetary returns to players, gives extra benefits (dye unlocks and metabolic primers), and took up a considerable larger amount of coding and design (had to create seed icons, code the beavior, add seeds to loot tables, add new recipes for the primers and dye unlocks, add the NPC, design the NPC, design the patch, code the patch behaviour, etc).And it costs

half the price of a mount

!

No, items like this are per definition made for whales only.

Average players have never been, and sadly are never going to be (based on their track record thus far) the target audience for premium mount content.

Dude, i'm not going to argue. I've already explained and demonstrated why "Whales" don't factor into this. Not in terms of who is the target audience, which it's actually correct. But if it's effective, which it isn't.

[Oglaf.1074]

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@"Scarlett.1605" said:I like the new springer skin, the goatzelle look is pretty unique I think.

Yeah, I like it too, but it isn't worth $25. And trying to get away with charging that much, especially when they're doing it regularly for new skins that can't even be exclusively used because of the design of the mount system, is going to drive a lot of people out instead of incentivizing them to continue.

It really couldn't be any clearer that Anet doesn't really know what they're doing.

On the contrary, Mike O'Brien explained exactly why they have priced Mountfits at 1600-2000 gems each: they generate more cash flow by offering premium items at premium prices than they do by offering a higher number of more affordable options. The prices are too rich for my blood (and, as I've said elsewhere, they did a poor job of setting our expectations about the new prices), but then again, you & I aren't the intended audience for these offers.

But they aren't premium items, and his reasoning his flawed. Don't assume he knows what he's talking about just because he's a CEO. I have enough experience in the business world to know that human nature is just faking knowledge through posturing.

No, his reasoning is perfect.

Look up the term "whales" in terms of a freemium economy.

It's not... Google Scale Economy.Whales work for stuff like black lion keys, and the sort. Stuff that can be bought over and over.As for mounts, it's one time purchase. "Whales" by definition are a small percentage of the community.Selling an item for 2000 gems to 10% of the community will generate less income than selling the same item for 1000 gems to 30% of the community.MO spoke without actual data to back him up. Sure he generates more money from selling more expensive items that get lots of purchases vs much cheaper items that get simmilar numbers.But at the time of Arena Net deciding to push mount skins for 2000 gems, they had sold exactly NOTHING that was a single item at that same price. The closest thing was Cosmetic Bundles (that they themselves claim are worth closer to 3000 gems than 2000), and Gathering tool bundles.Otherwise, the most expensive cosmetic single items were all at 800 gems.They banked on hype, it backfired, and now they're keeping the current prices simply out of sheer posturing, because otherwise it will confirm that MO was dishonest.

I mean, their actions just confirm this. Look at the garden patch: It costs

HALF

of a mount skin, and yet it's an item that provides actual monetary returns to players, gives extra benefits (dye unlocks and metabolic primers), and took up a considerable larger amount of coding and design (had to create seed icons, code the beavior, add seeds to loot tables, add new recipes for the primers and dye unlocks, add the NPC, design the NPC, design the patch, code the patch behaviour, etc).And it costs

half the price of a mount

!

No, items like this are per definition made for whales only.

Average players have never been, and sadly are never going to be (based on their track record thus far) the target audience for premium mount content.

Dude, i'm not going to argue. I've already explained and demonstrated why "Whales" don't factor into this.

You think you have, but you're wrong.

Overpriced cosmetic items like this are per definition made for whales.

[Cragga the Eighty Third.60]

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

The name implies goat, i'm aware!But the head is that of a Kangaroo.. Sorry man... My grandma and aunts bred goats for a long time. It's not a goat.Look at the images.

Okay, it's not entirely a goat, but neither is it entirely a kangaroo. (Yes, I've seen it. In fact, I've ridden it.)Let's just put it down as an amalgamated critter. It has goatlike features such as a beard and a deep bleat, and kangaroo-like features, and honestly some features that seem llama-like.

@Leo G.4501 said:My opinion: I didn't want any of the other mounts. 2000 gems was too much for them... But really, so would 1000 gems. They'd have had to drop the price of those exclusive mounts to around 700 gems for me to think about throwing some gems away... And I likely would have still been choosy if which skin I'd pick.

Since I didn't spend anything on those other skins, I saved for several weeks ( already had the gems lying around for the holiday skins) in anticipation of what was in store for the Springer. So to me, it's not 2000 gems for each skin but 2000 gems for the one skin you really wanted to spend the money on. Still, it's a gamble because I could really like the exclusive griffon mount and not have any disposable cash ready for it like I do with this skin.

In the same boat, this was finally the first premium skin I really liked, and now the gems I got for selling that wintersday infusion are all gone. :DOn the up side, getting rid of that silly, high-pitched lamb bleat was worth half the price alone.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:On the up side, getting rid of that silly, high-pitched lamb bleat was worth half the price alone.

Next up: 1000 gems for mountfits that only change the default sound?

[Ayumi Spender.1082]

The new Springer skin makes me sick.Not the price or anything, I just don't like seeing things chew with it's mouth open. It really makes me queasy.

[Oglaf.1074]

@Ayumi Spender.1082 said:The new Springer skin makes me sick.Not the price or anything, I just don't like seeing things chew with it's mouth open. It really makes me queasy.

Curse you.

Cannot. Unsee.

[Rococo.8347]

@"Kheldorn.5123" said:These skins are made for whales, not for you or me :)

Im fine with Whales being kept happy - really, knock yourself out Anet...

However ALL mounts only being available at cheap for dodgy RNG or very very expensive , rather than a 'cheap seats' less impressive no RNG mounts for say 500-700 or even god forbid - in game(!) regardless of any number crunching just feels wrong in so many ways and long term counter intuitive to retain players ( which will also affect profits).

Anet are essentially locking off access of a particular group of cosmetics to say 85-90% of the community? ( I cant see whales being more than 10% tbh) purely because that makes more, maybe not even that much more if what ive seen in game is anything to go by, the equivalent model in game is Raids, only suitable for a small player base, and if any time players feel that Raids are getting more resources and attention than elsewhere, people eventually kick off.

This model they are using is going to work against them eventually.

When I was a dirt poor student, I used to go to classical music concerts at a Theatre I couldnt really afford - they provided seating in 'The Gods' which had bad viewing high up for students at mega cheap prices at certain times. The Theatre makes a tonne off selling tickets for 'The Boxes' the private seating at the sides and the best seats in 'The Stalls' and 'Dress Circle' but by providing for me with a 'skint' option so I still felt involved with the scene, it paid dividends long term - now I can afford it I buy expensive tickets to see things there and they have a loyal happy customer - that's how I feel about this situation with Mounts.

[Scarlett.1605]

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@Scarlett.1605 said:I like the new springer skin, the goatzelle look is pretty unique I think.

It's a Horned Kangaroo, not a goat, not a gazelle... It's a Kangaroo with horns...

How about a Kangoatzelle?

[Game of Bones.8975]

This is why I don't buy skins on their own. I'll buy Gems for BLC keys or Gold a few times a month; I get some nice weapons, minis, boosts, and I'm helping fund the "free" game.

[Obtena.7952]

@ReaverKane.7598 said:I guess the paltry discount wasn't convincing enough (why should it be) so instead of discounting it further to increase the sales, they decided to double down. I mean at least they'll get 400 gems more per each of the miserable number of sales they've had.

Do you know if their sales have been miserable ... or is this just verbal pouting? I can assure you that if they can't sell mounts at the price they have set ... they won't. They've already stopped selling armor a long time ago for EXACTLY this reason. Therefore, I see nothing preventing them from stopping sales of mounts too if they can't make them profitable.

[Nilkemia.8507]

There is no reason for these to be as costly as they are. At worst, they should be no more expensive than outfits (700 gems). I'd argue they could be a little cheaper than that, seeing as outfits can be used all the time, whereas mounts are restricted in certain areas.

[Ashen.2907]

@Rococo.8347 said:

@"Kheldorn.5123" said:These skins are made for whales, not for you or me :)

Im fine with Whales being kept happy - really, knock yourself out Anet...

However ALL mounts only being available at cheap for dodgy RNG or very very expensive , rather than a 'cheap seats' less impressive no RNG mounts for say 500-700 or even god forbid - in game(!) regardless of any number crunching just feels wrong in so many ways and long term counter intuitive to retain players ( which will also affect profits).

Anet are essentially locking off access of a particular group of cosmetics to say 85-90% of the community? ( I cant see whales being more than 10% tbh) purely because that makes more, maybe not even that much more if what ive seen in game is anything to go by, the equivalent model in game is Raids, only suitable for a small player base, and if any time players feel that Raids are getting more resources and attention than elsewhere, people eventually kick off.

This model they are using is going to work against them eventually.

When I was a dirt poor student, I used to go to classical music concerts at a Theatre I couldnt really afford - they provided seating in 'The Gods' which had bad viewing high up for students at mega cheap prices at certain times. The Theatre makes a tonne off selling tickets for 'The Boxes' the private seating at the sides and the best seats in 'The Stalls' and 'Dress Circle' but by providing for me with a 'skint' option so I still felt involved with the scene, it paid dividends long term - now I can afford it I buy expensive tickets to see things there and they have a loyal happy customer - that's how I feel about this situation with Mounts.

The cheapseats, less impressive, no RNG, not aimed at whales, gained in game already exists.