Ayumi Spender.1082 Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 I mean, they really must be making enough money from them, right?I just don't see people using them.Mecha Fire Goat I only saw 2 times.Chicken Peacock I only saw 4 times.Doomray I only saw once during Wintersday.Chewbookah I have not seen yet. I'm sure I will at least see one before the special Griffon comes to take it place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaramSin.2693 Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 @"ReaverKane.7598" said:The gemstore is also slowly edging a bit too close to pay to win, especially with the new garden plots offering free dye unlocks and stuff.Well, instead to call it "pay to win" I will call mount skin "(over)pay for nothing" :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taygus.4571 Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 I would pay 10€, msybe 15€ for mount skins.That's my limit tho.I think the high price is to make up for the numbers of people converting gold to gems?This way less people can really grind out the gold and are more likely to supplement it with cash.If you go half n half, it's not so bad, and I expect that's the idea.Also compare. Mount skins are quite detailed and change alot of how the mount looks and sounds and acts when you're waiting around.There's alot of work involved in them. People have no problem paying half the cost for home instance node, that barely takes any work to make. ..but the mounts are too much? I think the real issue is everything in the gem store is somewhat over priced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaklex.6308 Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 @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.The entire strategy is completely shut off from reality:It's overpriced (i guess they're still banking on the 2000 gem price pushing people towards the RNG mounts and thus earning more than they would, otherwise?)It's too frequent. I mean one new mount every month? Do they really believe there's that many people playing that can shill out 30€ every month for GW2? Even at 1000 gems, there's probably a vast majority that wouldn't buy them all because it's just too frequent.First off, there are quite a few people that are willing to pay that much a month, if not more, to buy things from the Gem store...it's really not any more than going out to eat once or twice a month, and that is gone after you eat it, at least the mount skin remains with you throughout the life of the game.Secondly, once a month for new SKIN, not a new mount, might be too much in your opinion, but if they sell enough for the work that one individual puts into it then it's worth it on Anets part.Also, there's whales and then there are the people known as consumerists, those that actually support the worldwide economy by being consumers, aka spending their free money and not hoarding it. I choose to spend my free money on this game, and a select few other pursuits. No one should be chastised or criticized for what they spend their own money on...it's everyone's choice as to what they want to support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jediwolf.8724 Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 If people want to buy them it is their choice. Personally think they should be the same price as a new outfit.I only question why Anet puts them out a 2000 gems to sell a few, then they could put them out for 700 and sell a ton of them?Wouldn't that make Anet more money and make players happier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndigoSundown.5419 Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 @"Taygus.4571" said:I think the high price is to make up for the numbers of people converting gold to gems?This way less people can really grind out the gold and are more likely to supplement it with cash.Other than the initial seed of gems ANet put in to jump start the exchange, or someone foolishly buying gems with gold, then changing their mind and reversing the transaction, gems in the exchange have all been purchased by someone for cash. The sales technique which gets people to shell out cash instead of farming gold is "limited time offers." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miraude.2107 Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 I just figured I'd pipe in and say,Elder Scrolls Online has player housing in their cash shop that's $60-$100 US cash. So things in the cash shop could be worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oglaf.1074 Posted January 17, 2018 Author Share Posted January 17, 2018 @"miraude.2107" said:I just figured I'd pipe in and say,Elder Scrolls Online has player housing in their cash shop that's $60-$100 US cash. So things in the cash shop could be worse.That's kind of a "two rights wrong make a right" kind of logic right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STIHL.2489 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 @Oglaf.1074 said:@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.No.. not by a long shot. a single 20 dollar, once per account purchase is not marketed to Whales, but to average spenders , from what I could learn about F2P Item mall MMO's, the "average paying player", spends around 25 a month, maybe a bit more. Working with that information, If you look at the new mount skins, they are targeted directly for that demographic, Hence the slow turn out of the skins (once a month or so), being single mount purchase for 20 something dollars. these skins are tailored to be attractive to that "average" marketable player, This is not whale territory at all. Whales can spend upwards into the thousands in a single month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oglaf.1074 Posted January 18, 2018 Author Share Posted January 18, 2018 @STIHL.2489 said:@Oglaf.1074 said:@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.No.. not by a long shot. a single 20 dollar, once per account purchase is not marketed to Whales, but to average spenders , from what I could learn about F2P Item mall MMO's, the "average paying player", spends around 25 a month, maybe a bit more. Working with that information, If you look at the new mount skins, they are targeted directly for that demographic, Hence the slow turn out of the skins (once a month or so), being single mount purchase for 20 something dollars. these skins are tailored to be attractive to that "average" marketable player, This is not whale territory at all. Whales can spend upwards into the thousands in a single month.You can try and excuse it all you want, but you are trying to use two wrongs make a right-fallacy here.Just because Anet's mounts aren't as bad a game X or game Y doesn't make the pricetag anywhere near acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STIHL.2489 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 @Oglaf.1074 said:@STIHL.2489 said:@Oglaf.1074 said:@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.No.. not by a long shot. a single 20 dollar, once per account purchase is not marketed to Whales, but to average spenders , from what I could learn about F2P Item mall MMO's, the "average paying player", spends around 25 a month, maybe a bit more. Working with that information, If you look at the new mount skins, they are targeted directly for that demographic, Hence the slow turn out of the skins (once a month or so), being single mount purchase for 20 something dollars. these skins are tailored to be attractive to that "average" marketable player, This is not whale territory at all. Whales can spend upwards into the thousands in a single month.You can try and excuse it all you want, but you are trying to use two wrongs make a right-fallacy here.Just because Anet's mounts aren't as bad a game X or game Y doesn't make the pricetag anywhere near acceptable.No, That's not what I am saying at all. I am saying these mounts are designed around average players spending habits.I get that you want to believe they are for whales but you are wrong.They are for average people like me that can afford 20 - 40 a month on my hobby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taygus.4571 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 @Oglaf.1074 said:@STIHL.2489 said:@Oglaf.1074 said:@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.No.. not by a long shot. a single 20 dollar, once per account purchase is not marketed to Whales, but to average spenders , from what I could learn about F2P Item mall MMO's, the "average paying player", spends around 25 a month, maybe a bit more. Working with that information, If you look at the new mount skins, they are targeted directly for that demographic, Hence the slow turn out of the skins (once a month or so), being single mount purchase for 20 something dollars. these skins are tailored to be attractive to that "average" marketable player, This is not whale territory at all. Whales can spend upwards into the thousands in a single month.You can try and excuse it all you want, but you are trying to use two wrongs make a right-fallacy here.Just because Anet's mounts aren't as bad a game X or game Y doesn't make the pricetag anywhere near acceptable.According to this http://corp.ign.com/press/2005/gamers-are-spending-700-a-year-on-games-according-to-new-ign-studyGamers spend and average of 700$ a year on games. Almost 300$ on PC games.Why are you so convinced mount skins are aimed at "whales", when if you were to buy 1 skin a month, you'd still come under the average spent per year.... And I imagine the skins aren't sold with the assumption that people will buy all the skins, more likely only the ones they really like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 @Oglaf.1074 said:@STIHL.2489 said:@Oglaf.1074 said:@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.No.. not by a long shot. a single 20 dollar, once per account purchase is not marketed to Whales, but to average spenders , from what I could learn about F2P Item mall MMO's, the "average paying player", spends around 25 a month, maybe a bit more. Working with that information, If you look at the new mount skins, they are targeted directly for that demographic, Hence the slow turn out of the skins (once a month or so), being single mount purchase for 20 something dollars. these skins are tailored to be attractive to that "average" marketable player, This is not whale territory at all. Whales can spend upwards into the thousands in a single month.You can try and excuse it all you want, but you are trying to use two wrongs make a right-fallacy here.Just because Anet's mounts aren't as bad a game X or game Y doesn't make the pricetag anywhere near acceptable.(some) people have accepted those prices so, by definition, they are acceptable. Your apparent dislike of something doesnt make in unacceptable. It makes it unappealing to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcShriek.5829 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 @Oglaf.1074 said:2k Gems for the new Springer skin.Granted, I wasn't going to buy them at 1.6k either, but y'know...Artists have to eat too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcShriek.5829 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 @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.When did whales become so cheap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taygus.4571 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 " 5th Planet Games, a developer of social games for both casual and hardcore audiences, starts classifying its players as whales when they spend $100 or more a month. "https://venturebeat.com/2013/03/14/whales-and-why-social-gamers-are-just-gamers/25$ per month is not a whale, and one doesn't have to buy all the skins offered in the store.Having other things you want to buy doesn't mean mount skins are aimed at whales.And 700 in games, yes...i couldn't find anytging specific to mmo players.I don't know about you, but thisis pretty much the only game I play. Don't mmo players tend to play less games in general? Idk.I'm saying the average gamer would buy a couple of the mount skins, so that they could buy other things.You don't need all the skins.When you compare the mount skins..to the gardening node...honestly they're fairly priced, they clearly take more work to design, with all the motion.Unless you feel everything inthe store is over priced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcShriek.5829 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 @Leo G.4501 said:@"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:$700 a year on "games"That mean a $60 game 10 times would be 600 and let's say the other $10 would be dlc.For PC let's say once again $30 for a game times 10 if they buy 10 games a year.If you wan't to talk let's say online games OR just DLC alone, even if it's $10 per new item in a store/shop/whatever the online game will call it.There's many gliders, armour, minis, keys, instruments, whatever for someone to easily rack up $300 on PC.The issue still there is if a mount skin is $25, you're going to tell me the average someone would buy is 12 of those mount skins and nothing else?They would quicker buy those discount things. A new character slot, a new bag slot, more material storage, more bank storage, the gardening thing, whichever.The thing is those little $1 $2 $5 $10 things add up. You don't think on it, but it racks up really quickly.If someone said they spent thousands of dollars on gum, another might think they're mental but... if you look over the course of their lifetime even at 25 cents to a dollar to that gum... it adds up.These mount skins are overpriced.You're setting yourself up for the "hours of playtime" rebuttle. Consider myself, I'm more likely to rebuy old games I've already bought and played but want to play again than I am to buy many newer games (just rebought KOTOR and KOTOR2 on steam last month, in fact). If the average gamer will spend around $300 dollars on games, some of which they likely won't play again after they finish, how do you compare spending the same amount on 1 or 2 games that you keep playing/maintaining/building upon?The thing that many don't consider is that, the longer you play a specific game and the more you spend on said game, the more likely you'll be to think of money spent on the game as an "investment" into your entertainment and the harder it will be to move on to another game.I'd say, it's only overpriced if you absolutely only look at the specific item's value (it's a skin...it's actually worth 0), but looking at it on a personal value of how much I am willing to spend on the game in a given time + the amount of entertainment I derive from it, it doesn't seem that bad to me. In the past 3 months, I only bought 1 outfit, the wintersday mount bundle and this mount. How much is that? Like 4300 gems? Over 4 months (because I'm not buying anymore gems for a while) seems like a fair deal for a decent game that I'll likely get a few more hundred hours in the upcoming months...Whales are not determined by ho much they spend on games each month, but more specifically how much they spend on a game. If I spend $100 per month on games, I'm not a whale. but some games will classify me as such if I spend $100 per month on their game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STIHL.2489 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 @DarcShriek.5829 said:@Leo G.4501 said:@"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:$700 a year on "games"That mean a $60 game 10 times would be 600 and let's say the other $10 would be dlc.For PC let's say once again $30 for a game times 10 if they buy 10 games a year.If you wan't to talk let's say online games OR just DLC alone, even if it's $10 per new item in a store/shop/whatever the online game will call it.There's many gliders, armour, minis, keys, instruments, whatever for someone to easily rack up $300 on PC.The issue still there is if a mount skin is $25, you're going to tell me the average someone would buy is 12 of those mount skins and nothing else?They would quicker buy those discount things. A new character slot, a new bag slot, more material storage, more bank storage, the gardening thing, whichever.The thing is those little $1 $2 $5 $10 things add up. You don't think on it, but it racks up really quickly.If someone said they spent thousands of dollars on gum, another might think they're mental but... if you look over the course of their lifetime even at 25 cents to a dollar to that gum... it adds up.These mount skins are overpriced.You're setting yourself up for the "hours of playtime" rebuttle. Consider myself, I'm more likely to rebuy old games I've already bought and played but want to play again than I am to buy many newer games (just rebought KOTOR and KOTOR2 on steam last month, in fact). If the average gamer will spend around $300 dollars on games, some of which they likely won't play again after they finish, how do you compare spending the same amount on 1 or 2 games that you keep playing/maintaining/building upon?The thing that many don't consider is that, the longer you play a specific game and the more you spend on said game, the more likely you'll be to think of money spent on the game as an "investment" into your entertainment and the harder it will be to move on to another game.I'd say, it's only overpriced if you absolutely only look at the specific item's value (it's a skin...it's actually worth 0), but looking at it on a personal value of how much I am willing to spend on the game in a given time + the amount of entertainment I derive from it, it doesn't seem that bad to me. In the past 3 months, I only bought 1 outfit, the wintersday mount bundle and this mount. How much is that? Like 4300 gems? Over 4 months (because I'm not buying anymore gems for a while) seems like a fair deal for a decent game that I'll likely get a few more hundred hours in the upcoming months...Whales are not determined by ho much they spend on games each month, but more specifically how much they spend on a game. If I spend $100 per month on games, I'm not a whale. but some games will classify me as such if I spend $100 per month on their game.It would take a lot more then 100 a month to be a Whale, depending on the game company of course, some whales can spend upwards to 20 - 50 thousand a year on a single game. I think the most legendary Whale out there spent 1.1 million on a game over 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReaverKane.7598 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 @Obtena.7952 said:@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. I don't have anything aside from anecdotal evidence. But surely, compared to other cosmetic items, they haven't sold a fraction of other similar items.I mean every time a Outfit comes out you see several of them. When they first came out, Everyone was using them, same for gliders, when the first couple gliders came out, they were everywhere. Not people have more choices and buy less.But the first mounts released without RNG? It's an event if you actually see one ingame.So yeah, i'm pretty sure they don't sell nearly as well as they would at half the price, especially because even "whales" consider it too expensive.@Ashen.2907 said:@Oglaf.1074 said:@STIHL.2489 said:@Oglaf.1074 said:@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.No.. not by a long shot. a single 20 dollar, once per account purchase is not marketed to Whales, but to average spenders , from what I could learn about F2P Item mall MMO's, the "average paying player", spends around 25 a month, maybe a bit more. Working with that information, If you look at the new mount skins, they are targeted directly for that demographic, Hence the slow turn out of the skins (once a month or so), being single mount purchase for 20 something dollars. these skins are tailored to be attractive to that "average" marketable player, This is not whale territory at all. Whales can spend upwards into the thousands in a single month.You can try and excuse it all you want, but you are trying to use two wrongs make a right-fallacy here.Just because Anet's mounts aren't as bad a game X or game Y doesn't make the pricetag anywhere near acceptable.(some) people have accepted those prices so, by definition, they are acceptable. Your apparent dislike of something doesnt make in unacceptable. It makes it unappealing to you.(some) people accept racism, domestic violence, terrorism, etc. That doesn't make it acceptable in general.I'm not saying that mount prices are anything near as negative as those actions. Just that your argument doesn't hold water.@DarcShriek.5829 said:@Oglaf.1074 said:2k Gems for the new Springer skin.Granted, I wasn't going to buy them at 1.6k either, but y'know...Artists have to eat too.Yeah, and they're paid a salary... And arguably, since replicating mounts doesn't cost more, mounts and other digital goods are pretty much made for scale economics as in selling them cheaply but in numbers.@"Taygus.4571" said:I would pay 10€, msybe 15€ for mount skins.That's my limit tho.I think the high price is to make up for the numbers of people converting gold to gems?This way less people can really grind out the gold and are more likely to supplement it with cash.If you go half n half, it's not so bad, and I expect that's the idea.Also compare. Mount skins are quite detailed and change alot of how the mount looks and sounds and acts when you're waiting around.There's alot of work involved in them. People have no problem paying half the cost for home instance node, that barely takes any work to make. ..but the mounts are too much? I think the real issue is everything in the gem store is somewhat over priced.Barely takes any work? The node? I think you got it backwards.For the mount, they have to sculpt the mesh, apply to the "skeleton", add a texture, and then get some new sounds for it, so basically the same work as a 800 gem outfit, minus the SFX, for the most part.For the Garden:Need to sculpt the model.Create a NPC.Create graphics for the seed icons, and new herbs.Create recipes for the new craftsAdd seeds to loot tablesAdd behaviors to the NPCCreate the collectionYeah clearly less work, and doesn't involve way more teams to make it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kovu.7560 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 @Randulf.7614 said:It's an excellent skin, but at 2000 gems, I'm not touching it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 @ReaverKane.7598 said:@Obtena.7952 said:@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. I don't have anything aside from anecdotal evidence. But surely, compared to other cosmetic items, they haven't sold a fraction of other similar items.I mean every time a Outfit comes out you see several of them. When they first came out, Everyone was using them, same for gliders, when the first couple gliders came out, they were everywhere. Not people have more choices and buy less.But the first mounts released without RNG? It's an event if you actually see one ingame.So yeah, i'm pretty sure they don't sell nearly as well as they would at half the price, especially because even "whales" consider it too expensive.@Ashen.2907 said:@Oglaf.1074 said:@STIHL.2489 said:@Oglaf.1074 said:@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.No.. not by a long shot. a single 20 dollar, once per account purchase is not marketed to Whales, but to average spenders , from what I could learn about F2P Item mall MMO's, the "average paying player", spends around 25 a month, maybe a bit more. Working with that information, If you look at the new mount skins, they are targeted directly for that demographic, Hence the slow turn out of the skins (once a month or so), being single mount purchase for 20 something dollars. these skins are tailored to be attractive to that "average" marketable player, This is not whale territory at all. Whales can spend upwards into the thousands in a single month.You can try and excuse it all you want, but you are trying to use two wrongs make a right-fallacy here.Just because Anet's mounts aren't as bad a game X or game Y doesn't make the pricetag anywhere near acceptable.(some) people have accepted those prices so, by definition, they are acceptable. Your apparent dislike of something doesnt make in unacceptable. It makes it unappealing to you.(some) people accept racism, domestic violence, terrorism, etc. That doesn't make it acceptable in general.I'm not saying that mount prices are anything near as negative as those actions. Just that your argument doesn't hold water.@DarcShriek.5829 said:@Oglaf.1074 said:2k Gems for the new Springer skin.Granted, I wasn't going to buy them at 1.6k either, but y'know...Artists have to eat too.Yeah, and they're paid a salary... And arguably, since replicating mounts doesn't cost more, mounts and other digital goods are pretty much made for scale economics as in selling them cheaply but in numbers.@"Taygus.4571" said:I would pay 10€, msybe 15€ for mount skins.That's my limit tho.I think the high price is to make up for the numbers of people converting gold to gems?This way less people can really grind out the gold and are more likely to supplement it with cash.If you go half n half, it's not so bad, and I expect that's the idea.Also compare. Mount skins are quite detailed and change alot of how the mount looks and sounds and acts when you're waiting around.There's alot of work involved in them. People have no problem paying half the cost for home instance node, that barely takes any work to make. ..but the mounts are too much? I think the real issue is everything in the gem store is somewhat over priced.Barely takes any work? The node? I think you got it backwards.For the mount, they have to sculpt the mesh, apply to the "skeleton", add a texture, and then get some new sounds for it, so basically the same work as a 800 gem outfit, minus the SFX, for the most part.For the Garden:Need to sculpt the model.Create a NPC.Create graphics for the seed icons, and new herbs.Create recipes for the new craftsAdd seeds to loot tablesAdd behaviors to the NPCCreate the collectionYeah clearly less work, and doesn't involve way more teams to make it.A price, particularly for a luxury item, is acceptible if the owner of the luxury item finds it acceptible and if customers are willing to pay it. Comparisons to attempts to physically harm others are what doesnt hold water. If we were talking about bread, water, or some other essential for life I might be inclined to agree with you. As is, a few pixels on screen in a computer game....whatever.For what its worth, I dont consider the mount skins to be worth the price tag either. That doesnt make them unacceptible other than to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuka Cola.8520 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 Mounts were introduced for no other reasons but to milk the fanbase. Worst introduction since the ascended gear, and that was a looong time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 @ReaverKane.7598 said:(some) people accept racism, domestic violence, terrorism, etc. That doesn't make it acceptable in general.Horrible analogy. Accepting a high price for a good IS NOT ILLEGAL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STIHL.2489 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 @ReaverKane.7598 said:@Obtena.7952 said:(some) people have accepted those prices so, by definition, they are acceptable. Your apparent dislike of something doesnt make in unacceptable. It makes it unappealing to you.(some) people accept racism, domestic violence, terrorism, etc. That doesn't make it acceptable in general.Wait.. full stop here.Equating someone thinking that the work, time and effort put into that mount skin is worth 20 bucks, and Killing people because they disagree with your religion, world view, or just don't like the color of you skin.. is just wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cragga the Eighty Third.60 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 When did paying more for an imaginary toy than another imaginary toy-buyer thinks its worth become a moral issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.