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

[Oglaf.1074]

@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 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

Here's someone who clearly knows nothing about game design - especially modelling and rigging.

Mounts are only one model and one rig that is scaled up or down depending on race. A norn and asura alike literally use the same model and rig. The difference is just a scale %.

Outfits on the other hand not only have to be tailored for the different races' skeletons and rigs, but take into account the various body sizes/shapes as well as gender that constitutes the variation within each of the player races.

So no, you're wrong - making a new Mounfit takes way less effort from Anet's side than make an Outfit for your character. They're making one single new model as opposed to the myriad different ones they have to make for Outfits.

So we're left with two options here:

1) They are seriously underselling Outfits (which I very much doubt as Anet have not gone belly up yet).

or

2) They are overcharging out the wazoo for Mountfits (Hint: they bloody well are!).

[ReaverKane.7598]

@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 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

You realize they actually need to make different models for Each race, and gender? They need to fit the outfit on 10 different models, while they only need to fit one single mount skin.The fact that it's so hard to fit outfits and armor for every race is actually one of the major arguments that has been used against new races.Yes they change some effects and sounds, and those are another layer of design, but in the end it shouldn't be more than 10 different outfit models.> @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

@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.

Actually, given the amount of past and present response, and the number of models you see of these mounts, it's pretty much a general consensus that it's not an acceptable price. > @Ashen.2907 said:

@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.

No, i simply showed your logic was incorrect. You didn't state facts, you made a flawed and fallacious syllogism which i countered by applying the same syllogism to things that are universally considered unacceptable. Philosophy, learn it.> @Oglaf.1074 said:

@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 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

Here's someone who clearly knows nothing about game design - especially modelling and rigging.

Mounts are only one model and one rig that is scaled up or down depending on race. A norn and asura alike literally use the same model and rig. The difference is just a scale %.

Outfits on the other hand not only have to be tailored for the different races' skeletons and rigs, but take into account the various body sizes/shapes as well as gender that constitutes the variation within each of the player races.

So no, you're wrong - making a new Mounfit takes way less effort from Anet's side than make an Outfit for your character. They're making one single new model as opposed to the myriad different ones they have to make for Outfits.

So we're left with two options here:

1) They are seriously underselling Outfits (which I very much doubt as Anet have not gone belly up yet).

or

2) They are overcharging out the wazoo for Mountfits (Hint: they bloody well are!).

Well, there's an added layer of sound design and animation changes to the premium mounts, which should make them equitable if not slightly more expensive than outfits.That's why i would accept a price tag of ~1000 gems, since it involves more than just a 3D designer, they also need to get sound engineers on it. But 2000 is way exaggerated, at least to me, and a ton of other people that aren't running around with one of those mounts.

[Hypatia.3160]

Pricing for the whales leaves money (lots of money) on the table. shrug Their loss.

[Obtena.7952]

@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.

Nothing here changes what I've said. You're admitting you don't know (thanks) and we already know if the price is wrong (and that means a very different thing than people think), Anet will do something about it, even if it means they don't offer mount skins ... just like they did with armor sets. Threads like these are just players pouting that they don't want to spend so much money on an item they want. #lifeisntfair

[Zaklex.6308]

For everyone still discussing this, here's a simple math test that tells you why they're 2000 gems vs say 1000 gems. Hypothetically speaking say you have 1000 players that want to buy mount skins, 20% are willing to spend 2000 gems on those skins so that equals 400,000 in gems total. However, if the price is cut in half to 1000 gems now 30% want to buy the skins, or say even 35%, that equals 300,000 or 350,000 gems total. As a business person which would you choose? It would take doubling the amount of sales to equal the income from the higher price, that's how marketing works, plain and simple.

[Leo G.4501]

@Zaklex.6308 said:For everyone still discussing this, here's a simple math test that tells you why they're 2000 gems vs say 1000 gems. Hypothetically speaking say you have 1000 players that want to buy mount skins, 20% are willing to spend 2000 gems on those skins so that equals 400,000 in gems total. However, if the price is cut in half to 1000 gems now 30% want to buy the skins, or say even 35%, that equals 300,000 or 350,000 gems total. As a business person which would you choose? It would take doubling the amount of sales to equal the income from the higher price, that's how marketing works, plain and simple.

Another aspect to consider, even if priced to high for some now, and the 1-time purchase nature of these items, it's still possible to pressure players to purchase the skins at a later time, such as with limited time sales or bundled with other items. None of that would be an option if the skins were just 800 gems.