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

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@Ayumi Spender.1082 said: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.

Our impressions of how many skins have been sold are almost certainly wrong. We can tell that the fraction of players purchasing isn't high, but the point of the high price is that ANet doesn't have to sell as many. The target audience isn't us skinflints saving 2k for the perfect skin, it's the folks that would pay a subscription (if the game had one) and are willing to spend $25 every month or three for another skin.

In other words, instead of trying to sell a plain Springer to a bunch of people, plain raptor to another bunch, etc, they try to sell Mecha Fire, Chicken Peacock, Doomray, & Chewiespringer to the same few people. (which partly explains why we see fewer of them: each whale can only display one fancy skin at a time)

[Tenrai Senshi.2017]

@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.

The ironic part about this statement, is that selling more skins at a slightly lower price point could actually lead to more profit than selling a minority at a very high price point. I've rarely ever seen the new mounts being used, so I can't imagine they're doing very well, sales wise. I don't have the actual numbers though so maybe the picture is different from what I am seeing.

[Ayumi Spender.1082]

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@"Ayumi Spender.1082" said: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.

Our impressions of how many skins have been sold are almost certainly wrong. We can tell that the fraction of players purchasing isn't high, but the point of the high price is that ANet doesn't have to sell as many. The target audience isn't us skinflints saving 2k for the perfect skin, it's the folks that would pay a subscription (if the game had one) and are willing to spend $25 every month or three for another skin.

In other words, instead of trying to sell a plain Springer to a bunch of people, plain raptor to another bunch, etc, they try to sell Mecha Fire, Chicken Peacock, Doomray, & Chewiespringer to the same few people. (which partly explains why we see fewer of them: each whale can only display one fancy skin at a time)

I mean, I guess?I'm more seeing it how I used to make money by selling things in auction houses in online games.I don't do it on GW2 as... there usually isn't something small that people buy that I can farm quickly that most people rather not do because "not enough profit made" and everything else gets undercut to the point it harms all sellers... BUT...

There's been many for this example and to related it to GW2, let's say I were a "stick of butter" seller if you will.It's easy to get, not too pricey, not many would try to farm it (don't know if anyone tries to actually), etc etc etc.

Now imagine we had our own shops. We don't in GW2, but imagine if we did. I would have my shop set up a specific way and sell specific things. Maybe that butter, maybe platinum ores, maybe some ectoplasm, and a multiple of other things that are usually the "bottom of the crafting range" things that I could make a better profit if I crafted, but rather leave that to others.

As of this post, the Stick of Butter for this example is 3.70 silver on the AH at the moment. If it was a shop oriented game, I would have my advertisement say something like (if the Butter was a hot seller) "Butter always at the price of 2.5 silver" or for Ecto it might say "Ecto always at the price of 15 silver" or something.Now the Ecto, in this case, is a bad example in this only because it's not something "Easy to farm", but it's still an example nonetheless. Now most would see and probably always keep an eye out for my shop because they know they can make 5-10% profit maybe by buying all of my stuff and then selling it at the higher more "current default" price.

That way, I know people always bought my things 1st and I never have to worry about my stuff selling and make sure I always have money in my pockets. In games like what I'm giving the example on, I used to have full stacks of the game's currency by the time the servers close down due to getting things I want already, selling things I rather not play "stock market" with in the shops and worry about people undercutting or something, and the high risk or the painstacking path to make something (GW2 example would be the legendaries I could buy) I would buy flat out and sell the materials/tools/boards/recipes on the shops for people to do the hard work and make a quicker profit so I can buy the things I want off hand.

Needless to say, me selling the things at a lower price makes me sell much more and much faster than those trying to make a bigger cut and sometimes have the items for longer (and sometimes too long to the point they don't make a profit no more).Seen times someone try to sell an outfit in a game for 20Mil and people kept undercutting until many people get said outfit and now it's down to like 7mil or less making those that maybe went "haha that fool selling for 15Mil don't know what they got, I will make a 5Mil profit" now going "....I just lost money."

Now in this case, I'm into art too. I really like art and WILL always criticize art... but the thing is as an artist, or in this case the person that make these mount skins, I would feel much happier knowing many like my skin and even bought it and using it.Would bring me joy to go "See that? That mount there? That Mecha ram? I really liked working on this and I'm now really happy to see sometimes 10s or 100s of people at a time in a town or an event or meta using them."Putting the price high and then seeing let's say... once in a blue moon, I see 1 or 2 if I'm lucky (might be luckier to find 4 shiny Pokémon without chaining in a row)... I would feel kind of like I wasted time as while some would say "I like how this look", but then when they say "I would not pay that much for it." I think it would really make me feel terrible.

I don't know Arenanet or their artists, but I would feel like skritt to not see many using the skins I made.

[Zaron.1987]

Skin Looks great.

Instant bought it

Ty anet for the awesome looking mount skinEven for 2k gems totally worth :)

And if less buy it its more exclusive so even better to me B) :#

[Astralporing.1957]

@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..

Ah, but the price to change servers is intentionally high enough to discourage you from doing it. What does that say about a skin whose price is higher than that?

@"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:When did paying more for an imaginary toy than another imaginary toy-buyer thinks its worth become a moral issue?Since the times when fleecing your clientele has become a moral issue. So, practically since people started selling/bartering things.

[rank eleven monk.9502]

@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.How do you know their sales numbers? I'm genuinely interested.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?)Again, based on what? Overpriced for you, and a lot of other people, and also acceptable for a lot of others. Do you really think they would be still pricing mounts @ 2k if the numbers looked terrible?Do they really believe there's that many people playing that can shill out 30€ every month for GW2?Probably not, and it's obviously not the point. Why would you need to buy ALL the mount skins? Are you also buying all the weapon and armor skins in Gemstore as well? Because that would actually be a lot more money. They want people to buy the skins that they like every here and then.Even at 1000 gems, there's probably a vast majority that wouldn't buy them all because it's just too frequent.This is beyond any logic so I won't elaborate.They killed the hype for the mounts with each release. It's so obviously getting a poor reception that it's sad to see them keep on pushing this, just hoping it blows away and this crap becomes the "new normal".I agree that they probably killed the hype slightly (with high price & frequency). It is getting poor reception on the forums where people mostly come to complain, at the same time, it's highly likely that they are still making good money with this - you can't know.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.Free dye unlocks = pay to win =) =) okay. Those dyes will definitely help you perform better in raids or spvp. You really should get familiar with the term P2W. Gemstore isn't P2W. I'm sorry but your logic is so flawed in so many ways I had to post this.

(disclaimer: I personally don't care about mount prices)

[Frostfang.5109]

I love the New goatzelle - bought one right away!

[STIHL.2489]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@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..

Ah, but the price to change servers is intentionally high enough to discourage you from doing it. What does that say about a skin whose price is higher than that?

MO himself said this is done because people are more likely to spend real money for higher priced items. It's simple marketing, its better to to sell 100 skins at 2000 gems where 90% will spend real money, then to sell 1000 skins at 800 gems where only 10% spend real money.

[Astralporing.1957]

@STIHL.2489 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@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..

Ah, but the price to change servers is intentionally high enough to discourage you from doing it. What does that say about a skin whose price is higher than that?

MO himself said this is done because people are more likely to spend real money for higher priced items. It's simple marketing, its better to to sell 100 skins at 2000 gems where 90% will spend real money, then to sell 1000 skins at 800 gems where only 10% spend real money.So, 1800 gems price is meant to discourage you from "purchasing" server transfer, but 2000 gems price is meant to be just a good marketing, and make you more likely to purchase? Somehow i miss the logic involved here.

Additionally, all gems are bought for real money. Just not necessarily your money. That's why Anet doesn't care whether you buy for real money or for gold - in the end someone has to pay cash for it anyway.

And this completely ignores the negative effect too predatory cash shop can have on the game's population. Those are practices that are used in games with high turnover, where you try to fleece the players for as much as possible, as fast as possible, because they most likely won't be playing for long anyway (which is not a problem only when you can easily replace them with new players - this is not true in GW2). It's not something you'd want in a game concerned about keeping the players loyal and dedicated for a long time.

[miraude.2107]

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@"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.

Nope more of a, Arenanet could look at the cash shops of other games and easily base their prices on a 'norm'. Like ESO and WoW doing $30 dollar mounts in their cash shops. ESO you look at it and go, well they have an optional subscription so maybe they are trying to supplement their income. With WoW you look and go, $15 subscription on top of paying another $30 for a mount? Greedy ass SOBS. Then you have Wildstar/Rift that is free to play, has optional subscription and a cash shop and have $30 mounts in their respective cash shops. Don't even get me started on the MMOs that are pay to win.

So 2,000 gems for a guaranteed chance at the mount skin is deemed reasonable when they look at outside sources. Though I have a feeling that if they put the new skin in the random mount adoption paper, there would be a post on here crying about how they should just be able to buy the skin outright. So it doesn't matter what we all think, arenanet is still stuck in a damned if do/damned if don't situation. It's almost like people coming in at my workplace and then complaining about the price of the items there not equating that my bosses have to pay land tax, electricity, water, vendors, employees, maintenance, insurance (building and people) and deal with shrink (stolen items) on top of it.

[Rococo.8347]

@Ashen.2907 said:The cheapseats, less impressive, no RNG, not aimed at whales, gained in game already exists.

Thtas the base mount not the skins, don't see the point in you being obtuse, that doesn't 'win' an argument

[Oglaf.1074]

@miraude.2107 said:

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@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.

Nope more of a, Arenanet could look at the cash shops of other games and easily base their prices on a 'norm'. Like ESO and WoW doing $30 dollar mounts in their cash shops. ESO you look at it and go, well they have an optional subscription so maybe they are trying to supplement their income. With WoW you look and go, $15 subscription on top of paying another $30 for a mount? Greedy kitten SOBS. Then you have Wildstar/Rift that is free to play, has optional subscription and a cash shop and have $30 mounts in their respective cash shops. Don't even get me started on the MMOs that are pay to win.

Yeah, that is exactly "two wrongs make a right"-kind of thinking.

How are you people not seeing this?

Just because there are even greedier and dumber companies out there does not legitimize Anet gouging their playerbase with mount skins that are stupidly overpriced for what they provide.

[Rococo.8347]

@STIHL.2489 said:

@"ReaverKane.7598" said:I wasn't equating it. I was simply giving the grossest example of why just because something is accepted by some doesn't mean it's acceptable.

What I don't think you grasp here, is that Equating racism to thinking something is worth the asking price, is insulting as kitten.

Literally, you just said "feeling something is worth the price is racist"

Let that sink in.

'literally' he did not and that sort of thinking is dangerous in itself and a lot of young people seem to do it - it destroys critical thinking and destroys social media - he didn't equate anything, he didn't say happiness with price is racist, that insane! - he took an assumed 'fact' from another persons comment and applied that 'fact' to distasteful situations to show that the 'fact' claimed wasn't correct.

People need to learn what 'literally' means

[Jonesy.9728]

@"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:I'm pretty sure it was 1600 because the skimmer is the least popular as well as least-used mount.

:( But I love my skyfish.

[DarcShriek.5829]

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@miraude.2107 said:

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@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.

Nope more of a, Arenanet could look at the cash shops of other games and easily base their prices on a 'norm'. Like ESO and WoW doing $30 dollar mounts in their cash shops. ESO you look at it and go, well they have an optional subscription so maybe they are trying to supplement their income. With WoW you look and go, $15 subscription on top of paying another $30 for a mount? Greedy kitten SOBS. Then you have Wildstar/Rift that is free to play, has optional subscription and a cash shop and have $30 mounts in their respective cash shops. Don't even get me started on the MMOs that are pay to win.

Yeah, that is exactly "two wrongs make a right"-kind of thinking.

How are you people not seeing this?

Just because there are even greedier and dumber companies out there does not legitimize Anet gouging their playerbase with mount skins that are stupidly overpriced for what they provide.

In my opinion the price isn't gouging. It's a luxury item, charge what you want.

[Oglaf.1074]

@DarcShriek.5829 said:

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@miraude.2107 said:

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@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.

Nope more of a, Arenanet could look at the cash shops of other games and easily base their prices on a 'norm'. Like ESO and WoW doing $30 dollar mounts in their cash shops. ESO you look at it and go, well they have an optional subscription so maybe they are trying to supplement their income. With WoW you look and go, $15 subscription on top of paying another $30 for a mount? Greedy kitten SOBS. Then you have Wildstar/Rift that is free to play, has optional subscription and a cash shop and have $30 mounts in their respective cash shops. Don't even get me started on the MMOs that are pay to win.

Yeah, that is exactly "two wrongs make a right"-kind of thinking.

How are you people not seeing this?

Just because there are even greedier and dumber companies out there does not legitimize Anet gouging their playerbase with mount skins that are stupidly overpriced for what they provide.

In my opinion the price isn't gouging. It's a luxury item, charge what you want.

Compare it to similar cosmetic items (i.e Outfits) and it very much is price gouging.

There is no way Mountfits warrant these prices. It is absurd to the extreme.

Especially when you consider that Outfits for characters involve much, much more time and effort from Anet's side.

[DarcShriek.5829]

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@DarcShriek.5829 said:

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@miraude.2107 said:

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@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.

Nope more of a, Arenanet could look at the cash shops of other games and easily base their prices on a 'norm'. Like ESO and WoW doing $30 dollar mounts in their cash shops. ESO you look at it and go, well they have an optional subscription so maybe they are trying to supplement their income. With WoW you look and go, $15 subscription on top of paying another $30 for a mount? Greedy kitten SOBS. Then you have Wildstar/Rift that is free to play, has optional subscription and a cash shop and have $30 mounts in their respective cash shops. Don't even get me started on the MMOs that are pay to win.

Yeah, that is exactly "two wrongs make a right"-kind of thinking.

How are you people not seeing this?

Just because there are even greedier and dumber companies out there does not legitimize Anet gouging their playerbase with mount skins that are stupidly overpriced for what they provide.

In my opinion the price isn't gouging. It's a luxury item, charge what you want.

Compare it to similar cosmetic items (i.e Outfits) and it very much is price gouging.

There is no way Mountfits warrant these prices. It is absurd to the extreme.

Especially when you consider that Outfits for characters involve much, much more time and effort from Anet's side.

That's simply your opinion. It's not a fact it is gouging. In my opinion it's not gouging. Please stop claiming that my opinion is absurd to the extreme.

The skins are luxury items. Part of what makes something a luxury item is a higher price. It's only gouging if the item is something that is considered a necessity, like groceries or fuel or housing.

[sasya neko.1985]

i only like the skimmer mount skin and it's also the only single mount that was 1600 gems, i think the 1600 gems is the top i would pay for it and even then it needs to be something i would really like. (like a hellhound jackal skin sample or a demon raptor skin sample )

[Leo G.4501]

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@miraude.2107 said:

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@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.

Nope more of a, Arenanet could look at the cash shops of other games and easily base their prices on a 'norm'. Like ESO and WoW doing $30 dollar mounts in their cash shops. ESO you look at it and go, well they have an optional subscription so maybe they are trying to supplement their income. With WoW you look and go, $15 subscription on top of paying another $30 for a mount? Greedy kitten SOBS. Then you have Wildstar/Rift that is free to play, has optional subscription and a cash shop and have $30 mounts in their respective cash shops. Don't even get me started on the MMOs that are pay to win.

Yeah, that is exactly "two wrongs make a right"-kind of thinking.

How are you people not seeing this?

Just because there are even greedier and dumber companies out there does not legitimize Anet gouging their playerbase with mount skins that are stupidly overpriced for what they provide.

You're equating money and morality. Making money, to you, is wrong. If that were true, your decadence in indulging in escapist media instead of helping the needy and expecting others to for the bill could be considered as greedy and "wrong".

There is no right or wrong, just profits and losses. If it's a sales tactic you feel is immoral, understand that morality is subjective and then do not support it. You can crusade all you want but all this right vs wrong argument is a particularly forced approached to getting what you want.

[Leo G.4501]

@Rococo.8347 said:

@STIHL.2489 said:

@"ReaverKane.7598" said:I wasn't equating it. I was simply giving the grossest example of why just because something is accepted by some doesn't mean it's acceptable.

What I don't think you grasp here, is that Equating racism to thinking something is worth the asking price, is insulting as kitten.

Literally, you just said "feeling something is worth the price is racist"

Let that sink in.

'literally' he did not and that sort of thinking is dangerous in itself and a lot of young people seem to do it - it destroys critical thinking and destroys social media - he didn't equate anything, he didn't say happiness with price is racist, that insane! - he took an assumed 'fact' from another persons comment and applied that 'fact' to distasteful situations to show that the 'fact' claimed wasn't correct.

People need to learn what 'literally' means

Well I didn't equates them but I did compare them. It's a bad analogy. The things he listed are illegal to one or more degree and compared to accepting a hiked up price? It's perfectly legal.

Even if it's not "literally" equating the two, it's still a dumb argument.

[Taygus.4571]

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@DarcShriek.5829 said:

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@miraude.2107 said:

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@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.

Nope more of a, Arenanet could look at the cash shops of other games and easily base their prices on a 'norm'. Like ESO and WoW doing $30 dollar mounts in their cash shops. ESO you look at it and go, well they have an optional subscription so maybe they are trying to supplement their income. With WoW you look and go, $15 subscription on top of paying another $30 for a mount? Greedy kitten SOBS. Then you have Wildstar/Rift that is free to play, has optional subscription and a cash shop and have $30 mounts in their respective cash shops. Don't even get me started on the MMOs that are pay to win.

Yeah, that is exactly "two wrongs make a right"-kind of thinking.

How are you people not seeing this?

Just because there are even greedier and dumber companies out there does not legitimize Anet gouging their playerbase with mount skins that are stupidly overpriced for what they provide.

In my opinion the price isn't gouging. It's a luxury item, charge what you want.

Compare it to similar cosmetic items (i.e Outfits) and it very much is price gouging.

There is no way Mountfits warrant these prices. It is absurd to the extreme.

Especially when you consider that Outfits for characters involve much, much more time and effort from Anet's side.

You do realise that the mount skins take more work than outfits? They change some of the movement actions and models on mounts...where as outfits are standard..using the same model.

I actually think mount skins should cost more than outfits

[Kako.1930]

@Taygus.4571 said:

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@DarcShriek.5829 said:

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@miraude.2107 said:

@Oglaf.1074 said:

@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.

Nope more of a, Arenanet could look at the cash shops of other games and easily base their prices on a 'norm'. Like ESO and WoW doing $30 dollar mounts in their cash shops. ESO you look at it and go, well they have an optional subscription so maybe they are trying to supplement their income. With WoW you look and go, $15 subscription on top of paying another $30 for a mount? Greedy kitten SOBS. Then you have Wildstar/Rift that is free to play, has optional subscription and a cash shop and have $30 mounts in their respective cash shops. Don't even get me started on the MMOs that are pay to win.

Yeah, that is exactly "two wrongs make a right"-kind of thinking.

How are you people not seeing this?

Just because there are even greedier and dumber companies out there does not legitimize Anet gouging their playerbase with mount skins that are stupidly overpriced for what they provide.

In my opinion the price isn't gouging. It's a luxury item, charge what you want.

Compare it to similar cosmetic items (i.e Outfits) and it very much is price gouging.

There is no way Mountfits warrant these prices. It is absurd to the extreme.

Especially when you consider that Outfits for characters involve much, much more time and effort from Anet's side.

You do realise that the mount skins take more work than out fits? Then change some of the movement actions and models on mounts...where as outfits are standard..exist same model.

I actually think mount skins should cost more than outfits

This is a good point, but idk about costing more than outfits. Some outfits have completely different designs depending on what race/gender your character is, so you get a lot of different appearances for 800 gems. I'm sure the mounts are more difficult to make individually, but even with the added effects and sounds, I don't think it warrants a 2,000 gem price for one mount skin. Maybe 1,000 gems... That's just my perspective though.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@"STIHL.2489" said:The other guy i replied to said that "some people already accepted the price, so that, by definition makes it acceptable".I counter-argued that a lot of things that aren't acceptable in a modern cultured society are accepted by some people. Which pretty much shows that his logic is not sound.

The acceptability of X, Y or Z is a social construct. That means that whether something is acceptable or not is a result of general agreement (I say general, because -- as you say -- you can always find some people who think the opposite). There is no general agreement-- as far as I can see -- on these boards as to whether certain gem store prices are acceptable or not. The most that can be said is that some prices are not acceptable to you -- and to some other people who share your view. Ashen was also incorrect, because there is no general agreement that the prices are acceptable, either.

[Ashen.2907]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@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..

Ah, but the price to change servers is intentionally high enough to discourage you from doing it. What does that say about a skin whose price is higher than that?

@"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:When did paying more for an imaginary toy than another imaginary toy-buyer thinks its worth become a moral issue?Since the times when fleecing your clientele has become a moral issue. So, practically since people started selling/bartering things.

Selling an item that people want to buy, at a price they are willing to pay, is not fleecing anyone.

[Ashen.2907]

@Rococo.8347 said:

@STIHL.2489 said:

@"ReaverKane.7598" said:I wasn't equating it. I was simply giving the grossest example of why just because something is accepted by some doesn't mean it's acceptable.

What I don't think you grasp here, is that Equating racism to thinking something is worth the asking price, is insulting as kitten.

Literally, you just said "feeling something is worth the price is racist"

Let that sink in.

'literally' he did not and that sort of thinking is dangerous in itself and a lot of young people seem to do it - it destroys critical thinking and destroys social media - he didn't equate anything, he didn't say happiness with price is racist, that insane! - he took an assumed 'fact' from another persons comment and applied that 'fact' to distasteful situations to show that the 'fact' claimed wasn't correct.

People need to learn what 'literally' means

Actually he did not show that the fact claimed was incorrect.