Gem Store prices are unbalanced.

[Obtena.7952]

@Einlanzer.1627 said:I will tell you this - I like GW2, I have a fairly high disposable income, and I've liked all of the mount skins released.

Despite that, I have bought none of them, because it's very apparent to me that they are overpriced. I routinely buy things I don't feel are overpriced, such as glider skins and makeover kits.

If the mount skins were $10, I likely would have bought all of the ones they've released to date instead of none of them. I imagine I'm not anywhere near alone.

OK .. but that's not any different than any other person who thinks the prices are too high ... and there will always be some, so again, that's no indication there is a problem with how this is priced. This way of thinking has nothing to do with how these items are priced in the first place. The question from Anet isn't how many people will buy if priced at X because that's not relevant question to them ... the question is what is the item release schedule on GS is and how it relates to gem sales so they can keep the lights on, the water running and meet their revenue targets. Anyone who is arguing for ONE item or item family being priced wrong has no idea on how this works. Again ... Anet will make corrections if necessary; they have done so in the past.

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

Or, they're just making guesses and don't actually know what they're doing. You know, the same thing that happens in most companies.

RIGHT!!! A gaming company that has survived on gem sales and store offering for the last 5 years ... NO idea what they are doing!!! OK ... :/ Let's just keep our fingers crossed that Anet keeps guessing right I suppose!!

[Einlanzer.1627]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:I will tell you this - I like GW2, I have a fairly high disposable income, and I've liked all of the mount skins released.

Despite that, I have bought none of them, because it's very apparent to me that they are overpriced. I routinely buy things I don't feel are overpriced, such as glider skins and makeover kits.

If the mount skins were $10, I likely would have bought all of the ones they've released to date instead of none of them. I imagine I'm not anywhere near alone.

OK .. but that's not any different than any other person who thinks the prices are too high ... and there will always be some, so again, that's no indication there is a problem with how this is priced. This way of thinking has nothing to do with how these items are priced in the first place. The question from Anet isn't how many people will buy if priced at X because that's not relevant question to them ... the question is what is the item release schedule on GS is and how it relates to gem sales so they can keep the lights on, the water running and meet their revenue targets. Anyone who is arguing for ONE item or item family being priced wrong has no idea on how this works. Again ... Anet will make corrections if necessary; they have done so in the past.

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

Or, they're just making guesses and don't actually know what they're doing. You know, the same thing that happens in most companies.

RIGHT!!! A gaming company that has survived on gem sales and store offering for the last 5 years ... NO idea what they are doing!!! OK ... :/ Let's just keep our fingers crossed that Anet keeps guessing right I suppose!!

The mount skins are a new commodity for them. Their past experience doesn't count for as much as you think it does. Also, just because they're making money doesn't mean that all of their business decisions are good or that they're making as much as they should be or could be. I mean, seriously, what a weaksauce argument.

Again, see appeal to authority.

[Obtena.7952]

That doesn't change what I said ... especially the part of Anet of having no idea of what they are doing after 5 years. The sour grapes routine is getting old. You think the prices are too high and you didn't buy them. Great. That's exactly what you should do ... and no more because that's enough; it's all the data Anet will need to make pricing decisions. Complaining on the forums about skin prices isn't like complaining about how much damage a class does; it's a business consideration and no one here has enough information to say anything intelligent about what the prices should be.

There is no appeal to authority ... Anet has run a online Gemshop in a MMO for FAR longer than you probably have ... my bet is that they have forgotten more about how to run their business than you have ever knew to begin with. Guess we can just sit around while Anet 'fails' and you stay mad.

[Ayrilana.1396]

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@MarshallLaw.9260 said:

@ZeftheWicked.3076 said:

Not to mention the very high price in rl money for gems.As things are on more then one occasion i chose to grind for ingame gold and exchange it for gems, rather then throw a few $ at you, because of the high prices and low real money:gem ratio...

Although I'm sure your knowledge of economic strategies is superb and you are a master of pricing, marketing, purchasing and selling of all varieties of virtual items and commodities, I would still question if you are in any way correct.ANet probably have a whole department who have analysed at which price, how many people will buy what product and set the level appropriately to maximize profit. Of course some people think the price is too high, they are not the target audience.With all due respect, gem prices are what they have always been and gem store items are 99% cosmetic changes ( excluding boosts and gathering tools). Therefore by definition, they are premium/luxury items, not affecting regular mechanics of the game.If the price

seems

to high for you, don't buy it. As mentioned, not all items are marketed at all people.

See the

companies/executives are hypercompetent

fallacy. Or, in other words, the

appeal to authority

.

News flash - professional economists are wrong way more often than they are right, and most companies don't hire professional economists. In reality, companies and their executives generally don't have a clue what they're doing, and and routinely make poor decisions that undermine their own revenue and long-term health.

Charging $25 for skins that are released frequently and can't be used exclusively is a bad marketing decision, because anyone with a lick of sense can see that it's artificially inflated, which is going to embitter a lot of people that want to support this game but don't want to be exploited by cash grab schemes. This can be seen by the numerous conversations about it on the message boards.

Or they determined that it was more optimal to sell the items at a higher cost based on data they’ve collected over the years. If they saw that they’d make much more money overall with higher prices, chances are they’re going to go that route.

Or, they're just making guesses and don't actually know what they're doing. You know, the same thing that happens in most companies.

Or you’re making all of that based on your opinions that may have little to no facts to back it up.

Right, I'm the one doing that.

You’re the one claiming to know how every company works, saying that they don’t know what they’re doing, and they’re simply just guessing. You provided zero evidence to support these claims but you use it to substantiate your claim that Anet must not know what they’re doing when determining pricing.

[Sithis.3564]

I'm laughing so hard. This is almost the same thing I hear from people complaining about the prices at the store I work. "Who can afford that?! Why it is so expensive?! This is absurd, I won't spent that much!" Yet.. there are people buying a single luggage for 500 €.. and they sometimes take a full set!If you can't afford it or if you don't like it enough to spend that much money, don't buy it. Simple.

[Ardenwolfe.8590]

@Obtena.7952 said:

RIGHT!!! A gaming company that has survived on gem sales and store offering for the last 5 years ... NO idea what they are doing!!! OK ... :/ Let's just keep our fingers crossed that Anet keeps guessing right I suppose!!

QFT. And let's keep in mind this isn't ANet's first time at the gem store rodeo. The idea that they don't know what they're doing after two successful MMOs and their expansions is beyond the pale of ridiculous.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@IndigoSundown.5419 said:-- stuff --

@Einlanzer.1627 said:Charging $25 for skins that are released frequently and can't be used exclusively is a

bad marketing decision

, because anyone with a lick of sense can see that it's artificially inflated,

which is going to embitter a lot of people

that want to support this game but don't want to be exploited by cash grab schemes. This can be seen by the

numerous conversations

about it on the message boards.

Your points would all be valid if I was trying to make predictions as an amateur economist. That's not what I'm doing. I'm simply agreeing that certain items are

very clearly overpriced

in the gem store, and it leads

to me

spending less money than I otherwise would.

If only your posts had more "to me" and less (or no) generalized statements claiming to speak for a larger group. It's not that I don't think there's some support for the way you think about certain gem store prices. However, the evidence does not support your contention that those items are clearly overpriced and bad marketing decisions in a general sense.

MO'B's message about mount pricing seems to indicate a shift in marketing strategy from relying on larger numbers of smaller purchases to relying more on smaller numbers of larger purchases. Maybe that has to do with a shrinking player base (and clearly evident shrinking revenue tied to the game's aging). Maybe it has to do with the conventional thinking about free to play shops relying on a small percentage of the player base. I'm curious to see the Q417 numbers (coming to an NCSoft web site near you "soon"). Either way, 2K gem individual and bundles don't seem to be targeted at you -- or me. They don't have to be bad decisions, though, just because we won't buy them.

[Lonewolf.4692]

I am new, my next paycheck I am SOOOOO getting that perma harvest tool 12.5euros is a STEAL after coming from Black Desert Online where I feel my wallet has been involved in a head on collision with a freight train!

[Einlanzer.1627]

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@MarshallLaw.9260 said:

@ZeftheWicked.3076 said:

Not to mention the very high price in rl money for gems.As things are on more then one occasion i chose to grind for ingame gold and exchange it for gems, rather then throw a few $ at you, because of the high prices and low real money:gem ratio...

Although I'm sure your knowledge of economic strategies is superb and you are a master of pricing, marketing, purchasing and selling of all varieties of virtual items and commodities, I would still question if you are in any way correct.ANet probably have a whole department who have analysed at which price, how many people will buy what product and set the level appropriately to maximize profit. Of course some people think the price is too high, they are not the target audience.With all due respect, gem prices are what they have always been and gem store items are 99% cosmetic changes ( excluding boosts and gathering tools). Therefore by definition, they are premium/luxury items, not affecting regular mechanics of the game.If the price

seems

to high for you, don't buy it. As mentioned, not all items are marketed at all people.

See the

companies/executives are hypercompetent

fallacy. Or, in other words, the

appeal to authority

.

News flash - professional economists are wrong way more often than they are right, and most companies don't hire professional economists. In reality, companies and their executives generally don't have a clue what they're doing, and and routinely make poor decisions that undermine their own revenue and long-term health.

Charging $25 for skins that are released frequently and can't be used exclusively is a bad marketing decision, because anyone with a lick of sense can see that it's artificially inflated, which is going to embitter a lot of people that want to support this game but don't want to be exploited by cash grab schemes. This can be seen by the numerous conversations about it on the message boards.

Or they determined that it was more optimal to sell the items at a higher cost based on data they’ve collected over the years. If they saw that they’d make much more money overall with higher prices, chances are they’re going to go that route.

Or, they're just making guesses and don't actually know what they're doing. You know, the same thing that happens in most companies.

Or you’re making all of that based on your opinions that may have little to no facts to back it up.

Right, I'm the one doing that.

You’re the one claiming to know how every company works, saying that they don’t know what they’re doing, and they’re simply just guessing. You provided zero evidence to support these claims but you use it to substantiate your claim that Anet must not know what they’re doing when determining pricing.

The burden of proof is not on me to provide data supporting that they don't know what they're doing. It's on you (or whomever) to provide data that they do.

The problem with threads like this is that most people on my side have already said their peace and moved on or out, while only defenders remain to pick apart arguments. It's sort of pointless for me to continue in this way, so I'm out.

[mtpelion.4562]

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@MarshallLaw.9260 said:

@ZeftheWicked.3076 said:

Not to mention the very high price in rl money for gems.As things are on more then one occasion i chose to grind for ingame gold and exchange it for gems, rather then throw a few $ at you, because of the high prices and low real money:gem ratio...

Although I'm sure your knowledge of economic strategies is superb and you are a master of pricing, marketing, purchasing and selling of all varieties of virtual items and commodities, I would still question if you are in any way correct.ANet probably have a whole department who have analysed at which price, how many people will buy what product and set the level appropriately to maximize profit. Of course some people think the price is too high, they are not the target audience.With all due respect, gem prices are what they have always been and gem store items are 99% cosmetic changes ( excluding boosts and gathering tools). Therefore by definition, they are premium/luxury items, not affecting regular mechanics of the game.If the price

seems

to high for you, don't buy it. As mentioned, not all items are marketed at all people.

See the

companies/executives are hypercompetent

fallacy. Or, in other words, the

appeal to authority

.

News flash - professional economists are wrong way more often than they are right, and most companies don't hire professional economists. In reality, companies and their executives generally don't have a clue what they're doing, and and routinely make poor decisions that undermine their own revenue and long-term health.

Charging $25 for skins that are released frequently and can't be used exclusively is a bad marketing decision, because anyone with a lick of sense can see that it's artificially inflated, which is going to embitter a lot of people that want to support this game but don't want to be exploited by cash grab schemes. This can be seen by the numerous conversations about it on the message boards.

Or they determined that it was more optimal to sell the items at a higher cost based on data they’ve collected over the years. If they saw that they’d make much more money overall with higher prices, chances are they’re going to go that route.

Or, they're just making guesses and don't actually know what they're doing. You know, the same thing that happens in most companies.

Or you’re making all of that based on your opinions that may have little to no facts to back it up.

Right, I'm the one doing that.

You’re the one claiming to know how every company works, saying that they don’t know what they’re doing, and they’re simply just guessing. You provided zero evidence to support these claims but you use it to substantiate your claim that Anet must not know what they’re doing when determining pricing.

The burden of proof is not on me. It's on you.

Actually, the burden of proof lies entirely upon the person making the claim. You are claiming that something is overpriced despite a complete and total lack of data or supportive argumentation.

This isn't a case of everyone else using an appeal to authority, but rather a case of your position being argued from a position of complete ignorance of all facts and circumstances.

You are free to speculate on the over/underpriced status of things on the gem store, but since you are devoid of data on the subject, presenting your argument as anything other than a completely unsubstantiated opinion is misleading at best.

[Obtena.7952]

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@MarshallLaw.9260 said:

@ZeftheWicked.3076 said:

Not to mention the very high price in rl money for gems.As things are on more then one occasion i chose to grind for ingame gold and exchange it for gems, rather then throw a few $ at you, because of the high prices and low real money:gem ratio...

Although I'm sure your knowledge of economic strategies is superb and you are a master of pricing, marketing, purchasing and selling of all varieties of virtual items and commodities, I would still question if you are in any way correct.ANet probably have a whole department who have analysed at which price, how many people will buy what product and set the level appropriately to maximize profit. Of course some people think the price is too high, they are not the target audience.With all due respect, gem prices are what they have always been and gem store items are 99% cosmetic changes ( excluding boosts and gathering tools). Therefore by definition, they are premium/luxury items, not affecting regular mechanics of the game.If the price

seems

to high for you, don't buy it. As mentioned, not all items are marketed at all people.

See the

companies/executives are hypercompetent

fallacy. Or, in other words, the

appeal to authority

.

News flash - professional economists are wrong way more often than they are right, and most companies don't hire professional economists. In reality, companies and their executives generally don't have a clue what they're doing, and and routinely make poor decisions that undermine their own revenue and long-term health.

Charging $25 for skins that are released frequently and can't be used exclusively is a bad marketing decision, because anyone with a lick of sense can see that it's artificially inflated, which is going to embitter a lot of people that want to support this game but don't want to be exploited by cash grab schemes. This can be seen by the numerous conversations about it on the message boards.

Or they determined that it was more optimal to sell the items at a higher cost based on data they’ve collected over the years. If they saw that they’d make much more money overall with higher prices, chances are they’re going to go that route.

Or, they're just making guesses and don't actually know what they're doing. You know, the same thing that happens in most companies.

Or you’re making all of that based on your opinions that may have little to no facts to back it up.

Right, I'm the one doing that.

You’re the one claiming to know how every company works, saying that they don’t know what they’re doing, and they’re simply just guessing. You provided zero evidence to support these claims but you use it to substantiate your claim that Anet must not know what they’re doing when determining pricing.

The burden of proof is not on me to provide data supporting that they don't know what they're doing. It's on you (or whomever) to provide data that they do.

The problem with threads like this is that most people on my side have already said their peace and moved on or out, while only defenders remain to pick apart arguments. It's sort of pointless for me to continue in this way, so I'm out.

LOLWUT? YOU are the one that made that claim/statement ... furthermore, the 'data' that Anet knows what they are doing is simply the fact that they have funded their games for many years with that gemstore business model.

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

Or, they're just making guesses and don't actually know what they're doing. You know, the same thing that happens in most companies.

:/ Let's take a turn and be honest here and put the cards on the table. Are you or are you not of the belief that Anet knows what they are doing? Because the fact they persist with the current business models shows they DO, contrary to the option/scenario you provided they don't. At this point, any idea that Anet is just clueless at how to run this business model and price Gemstore goods is ridiculous ... UNLESS you are willing to present some evidence that refutes this obvious fact they have been running this business model successfully for many years ... which is unlikely based on your claim you don't need to do such a thing. Time for you to change your course here.

[Einlanzer.1627]

@mtpelion.4562 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@MarshallLaw.9260 said:

@ZeftheWicked.3076 said:

Not to mention the very high price in rl money for gems.As things are on more then one occasion i chose to grind for ingame gold and exchange it for gems, rather then throw a few $ at you, because of the high prices and low real money:gem ratio...

Although I'm sure your knowledge of economic strategies is superb and you are a master of pricing, marketing, purchasing and selling of all varieties of virtual items and commodities, I would still question if you are in any way correct.ANet probably have a whole department who have analysed at which price, how many people will buy what product and set the level appropriately to maximize profit. Of course some people think the price is too high, they are not the target audience.With all due respect, gem prices are what they have always been and gem store items are 99% cosmetic changes ( excluding boosts and gathering tools). Therefore by definition, they are premium/luxury items, not affecting regular mechanics of the game.If the price

seems

to high for you, don't buy it. As mentioned, not all items are marketed at all people.

See the

companies/executives are hypercompetent

fallacy. Or, in other words, the

appeal to authority

.

News flash - professional economists are wrong way more often than they are right, and most companies don't hire professional economists. In reality, companies and their executives generally don't have a clue what they're doing, and and routinely make poor decisions that undermine their own revenue and long-term health.

Charging $25 for skins that are released frequently and can't be used exclusively is a bad marketing decision, because anyone with a lick of sense can see that it's artificially inflated, which is going to embitter a lot of people that want to support this game but don't want to be exploited by cash grab schemes. This can be seen by the numerous conversations about it on the message boards.

Or they determined that it was more optimal to sell the items at a higher cost based on data they’ve collected over the years. If they saw that they’d make much more money overall with higher prices, chances are they’re going to go that route.

Or, they're just making guesses and don't actually know what they're doing. You know, the same thing that happens in most companies.

Or you’re making all of that based on your opinions that may have little to no facts to back it up.

Right, I'm the one doing that.

You’re the one claiming to know how every company works, saying that they don’t know what they’re doing, and they’re simply just guessing. You provided zero evidence to support these claims but you use it to substantiate your claim that Anet must not know what they’re doing when determining pricing.

The burden of proof is not on me. It's on you.

Actually, the burden of proof lies entirely upon the person making the claim. You are claiming that something is overpriced despite a complete and total lack of data or supportive argumentation.

This isn't a case of everyone else using an appeal to authority, but rather a case of your position being argued from a position of complete ignorance of all facts and circumstances.

You are free to speculate on the over/underpriced status of things on the gem store, but since you are devoid of data on the subject, presenting your argument as anything other than a completely unsubstantiated opinion is misleading at best.

Sorry, but no. The claim in this case is that Anet has a professional economist and a sophisticated model of data proving they're setting the best price point for their mount skins and other expensive items. The assumption is that they are just being experimental with, at best, a limited set of useful data. Hypothetically, it is not possible to show evidence of the latter, whereas it is possible to show evidence of the former.

I'm sorry you don't understand how burden of proof works.

[mtpelion.4562]

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@mtpelion.4562 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@MarshallLaw.9260 said:

@"ZeftheWicked.3076" said:

Not to mention the very high price in rl money for gems.As things are on more then one occasion i chose to grind for ingame gold and exchange it for gems, rather then throw a few $ at you, because of the high prices and low real money:gem ratio...

Although I'm sure your knowledge of economic strategies is superb and you are a master of pricing, marketing, purchasing and selling of all varieties of virtual items and commodities, I would still question if you are in any way correct.ANet probably have a whole department who have analysed at which price, how many people will buy what product and set the level appropriately to maximize profit. Of course some people think the price is too high, they are not the target audience.With all due respect, gem prices are what they have always been and gem store items are 99% cosmetic changes ( excluding boosts and gathering tools). Therefore by definition, they are premium/luxury items, not affecting regular mechanics of the game.If the price

seems

to high for you, don't buy it. As mentioned, not all items are marketed at all people.

See the

companies/executives are hypercompetent

fallacy. Or, in other words, the

appeal to authority

.

News flash - professional economists are wrong way more often than they are right, and most companies don't hire professional economists. In reality, companies and their executives generally don't have a clue what they're doing, and and routinely make poor decisions that undermine their own revenue and long-term health.

Charging $25 for skins that are released frequently and can't be used exclusively is a bad marketing decision, because anyone with a lick of sense can see that it's artificially inflated, which is going to embitter a lot of people that want to support this game but don't want to be exploited by cash grab schemes. This can be seen by the numerous conversations about it on the message boards.

Or they determined that it was more optimal to sell the items at a higher cost based on data they’ve collected over the years. If they saw that they’d make much more money overall with higher prices, chances are they’re going to go that route.

Or, they're just making guesses and don't actually know what they're doing. You know, the same thing that happens in most companies.

Or you’re making all of that based on your opinions that may have little to no facts to back it up.

Right, I'm the one doing that.

You’re the one claiming to know how every company works, saying that they don’t know what they’re doing, and they’re simply just guessing. You provided zero evidence to support these claims but you use it to substantiate your claim that Anet must not know what they’re doing when determining pricing.

The burden of proof is not on me. It's on you.

Actually, the burden of proof lies entirely upon the person making the claim. You are claiming that something is overpriced despite a complete and total lack of data or supportive argumentation.

This isn't a case of everyone else using an appeal to authority, but rather a case of your position being argued from a position of complete ignorance of all facts and circumstances.

You are free to speculate on the over/underpriced status of things on the gem store, but since you are devoid of data on the subject, presenting your argument as anything other than a completely unsubstantiated opinion is misleading at best.

Sorry, but no. The claim in this case is that Anet has a professional economist and a sophisticated model of data proving they're setting the best price point for their mount skins and other expensive items. The assumption is that they are just being experimental. Hypothetically, it is not possible to show evidence of the latter, whereas it is possible to show evidence of the former.

I'm sorry you don't understand how burden of proof works.

That is not the claim.

The fact is that ArenaNet set the price.

The claim is that the price is "too high".

Any discussion of who is employed by ArenaNet is an irrelevant side conversation that would only matter if the claim had been shown to have form of merit. It is not the claim, but an unnecessary retort to your specious claim.

[Einlanzer.1627]

@mtpelion.4562 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@mtpelion.4562 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@MarshallLaw.9260 said:

@"ZeftheWicked.3076" said:

Not to mention the very high price in rl money for gems.As things are on more then one occasion i chose to grind for ingame gold and exchange it for gems, rather then throw a few $ at you, because of the high prices and low real money:gem ratio...

Although I'm sure your knowledge of economic strategies is superb and you are a master of pricing, marketing, purchasing and selling of all varieties of virtual items and commodities, I would still question if you are in any way correct.ANet probably have a whole department who have analysed at which price, how many people will buy what product and set the level appropriately to maximize profit. Of course some people think the price is too high, they are not the target audience.With all due respect, gem prices are what they have always been and gem store items are 99% cosmetic changes ( excluding boosts and gathering tools). Therefore by definition, they are premium/luxury items, not affecting regular mechanics of the game.If the price

seems

to high for you, don't buy it. As mentioned, not all items are marketed at all people.

See the

companies/executives are hypercompetent

fallacy. Or, in other words, the

appeal to authority

.

News flash - professional economists are wrong way more often than they are right, and most companies don't hire professional economists. In reality, companies and their executives generally don't have a clue what they're doing, and and routinely make poor decisions that undermine their own revenue and long-term health.

Charging $25 for skins that are released frequently and can't be used exclusively is a bad marketing decision, because anyone with a lick of sense can see that it's artificially inflated, which is going to embitter a lot of people that want to support this game but don't want to be exploited by cash grab schemes. This can be seen by the numerous conversations about it on the message boards.

Or they determined that it was more optimal to sell the items at a higher cost based on data they’ve collected over the years. If they saw that they’d make much more money overall with higher prices, chances are they’re going to go that route.

Or, they're just making guesses and don't actually know what they're doing. You know, the same thing that happens in most companies.

Or you’re making all of that based on your opinions that may have little to no facts to back it up.

Right, I'm the one doing that.

You’re the one claiming to know how every company works, saying that they don’t know what they’re doing, and they’re simply just guessing. You provided zero evidence to support these claims but you use it to substantiate your claim that Anet must not know what they’re doing when determining pricing.

The burden of proof is not on me. It's on you.

Actually, the burden of proof lies entirely upon the person making the claim. You are claiming that something is overpriced despite a complete and total lack of data or supportive argumentation.

This isn't a case of everyone else using an appeal to authority, but rather a case of your position being argued from a position of complete ignorance of all facts and circumstances.

You are free to speculate on the over/underpriced status of things on the gem store, but since you are devoid of data on the subject, presenting your argument as anything other than a completely unsubstantiated opinion is misleading at best.

Sorry, but no. The claim in this case is that Anet has a professional economist and a sophisticated model of data proving they're setting the best price point for their mount skins and other expensive items. The assumption is that they are just being experimental. Hypothetically, it is not possible to show evidence of the latter, whereas it is possible to show evidence of the former.

I'm sorry you don't understand how burden of proof works.

That is not the claim.

The fact is that ArenaNet set the price.

The claim is that the price is "too high".

Any discussion of who is employed by ArenaNet is an irrelevant side conversation that would only matter if the claim had been shown to have form of merit. It is not the claim, but an unnecessary retort to your specious claim.

This is an argument from ignorance leading to a useless game of burden shifting, which I admittedly also participated in.

You cannot assume the price is fine simply because it has not been sufficiently demonstrated to be too high.I cannot assume the price is too high because it has not been demonstrated that it's fine.

All we can do is draw semi-conclusions based on our own intuition in this context. My intuition tells me the price is too high, because, like many consumers, I value fairness in pricing, and am turned off by prices that appear to be artificially inflated in order to exploit demand to the point that it makes me question my overall support to the product and/or company. And I know that this view is not that unusual. And the reason Obtena's argument fails is because charging $25 for a skin is brand new in their business model. The fact that GW2 has been running with moderate success using a cash shop for a few years is not a useful data point in supporting the claim that the prices are fine.

If you disagree, that's fine, but don't act like your argument is more philosophically sound or that you have any clearer an objective answer to this quandary than I do.

[Majirah.5089]

@Eloc Freidon.5692 said:Permanent tools are about the only thing that makes sense in the gem store. Its the gross inconsistencies between cosmetics. Why do you think Mount skins are such a problem? Why does one hat cost 200 gems and another costs 600?

Why does one hat in real life cost 15 bucks and another cost 200? Some hats are deemed more desirable and therefore worth more than others.

[mtpelion.4562]

@"Einlanzer.1627" said:

This is an argument from ignorance leading to a useless game of burden shifting, which I admittedly also participated in.

You cannot assume the price is fine simply because it has not been sufficiently demonstrated to be too high.I cannot assume the price is too high because it has not been demonstrated that it's fine.

All we can do is draw semi-conclusions based on our own intuition in this context. My intuition tells me the price is too high, because, like many consumers, I value fairness in pricing, and am turned off by prices that appear to be artificially inflated in order to exploit demand to the point that it makes me question my overall support to the product and/or company. And I know that this view is not that unusual. And the reason Obtena's argument fails is because charging $25 for a skin is brand new in their business model. The fact that GW2 has been running with moderate success using a cash shop for a few years is not a useful data point in supporting the claim that the prices are fine.

If you disagree, that's fine, but don't act like your argument is more philosophically sound or that you have any clearer an objective answer to this quandary than I do.

I do not mean to suggest that you are not entitled to your opinion, which is that the price is too high. I only mean to state that based on these facts:

1. Mount skins are new.
2. Since they are new, they have no price history
3. The price was set at $25.
4. The price has not been lowered.
5. New options were introduced, which did not affect the pricing model of the single skin option.

The logical conclusion is that ArenaNet is meeting their revenue projection which means that the price point is not too high, it is just too high for you personally.

Rolls Royce sells cars for $450,000. That price point is not "too high", because they sell them at that price point for a profit. That price point is too high for me though, because I don't want to spend that much on a car.

I will even state that I am completely with you with regard to mount skins. $25 is substantially more than I am willing to pay for a mount skin, however, until ArenaNet either lowers the price or changes the delivery model completely, the logical assumption is that they have priced it correctly for the target market.

[Einlanzer.1627]

@mtpelion.4562 said:

@"Einlanzer.1627" said:

This is an argument from ignorance leading to a useless game of burden shifting, which I admittedly also participated in.

You cannot assume the price is fine simply because it has not been sufficiently demonstrated to be too high.I cannot assume the price is too high because it has not been demonstrated that it's fine.

All we can do is draw semi-conclusions based on our own intuition in this context. My intuition tells me the price is too high, because, like many consumers, I value fairness in pricing, and am turned off by prices that appear to be artificially inflated in order to exploit demand to

the point that it makes me question my overall support to the product and/or company

. And I

know

that this view is not that unusual. And the reason Obtena's argument fails is because charging $25 for a skin is brand new in their business model. The fact that GW2 has been running with moderate success using a cash shop for a few years is not a useful data point in supporting the claim that the prices are fine.

If you disagree, that's fine, but don't act like your argument is more philosophically sound or that you have any clearer an objective answer to this quandary than I do.

I do not mean to suggest that you are not entitled to your opinion, which is that the price is too high. I only mean to state that based on these facts:

1. Mount skins are new.
2. Since they are new, they have no price history
3. The price was set at $25.
4. The price has not been lowered.
5. New options were introduced, which did not affect the pricing model of the single skin option.

The logical conclusion is that ArenaNet is meeting their revenue projection which means that the price point is not too high, it is just too high for you personally.

Rolls Royce sells cars for $450,000. That price point is not "too high", because they sell them at that price point for a profit. That price point is too high for me though, because I don't want to spend that much on a car.

I will even state that I am completely with you with regard to mount skins. $25 is substantially more than I am willing to pay for a mount skin, however, until ArenaNet either lowers the price or changes the delivery model completely, the logical assumption is that they have priced it correctly for the target market.

Yes, but they get away with that due to the allure of exclusivity in the upper class economy (insert eye roll here), but they also have a lot of features and components that help drive up the cost to manufacture, and the selling point is likewise inflated. I'm not sure how comparable this is.

The only nitpick I'll make is that I think it's too early for us to conclude that the prices are fine just because they haven't gone down. For starters, Anet has a track record of failing to admit mistakes and moving slowly to correct course. What concerns me most is the indirect effect of making prices too high on any item - it tends to have a more significant effect in the long term even if they are meeting revenue goals in the short term. My feeling is that Anet needs to tread a bit more carefully about burning customers that would otherwise be loyal supporters by creating a perception that they are price gouging with vanity items.

[Zeivu.3615]

@Brian.6435 said:2000 gems for a mount skin is EFFING ridiculous. Anet is robbing people blind with that price. 2000 gems = 25 dollars. Path of fire standard edition is 30 bucks... HOW THE HELL DO YOU JUSTIFY ASKING 25 DOLLARS FOR A MOUNT SKIN, WHEN A FULL ON EXPANSION IS ONLY 5 DOLLARS MORE!??!

They lowered the asking price of PoF because of the poor taste HoT left in players' mouths. HoT was at least twenty dollars more.

[Obtena.7952]

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@mtpelion.4562 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

This is an argument from ignorance leading to a useless game of burden shifting, which I admittedly also participated in.

You cannot assume the price is fine simply because it has not been sufficiently demonstrated to be too high.I cannot assume the price is too high because it has not been demonstrated that it's fine.

All we can do is draw semi-conclusions based on our own intuition in this context. My intuition tells me the price is too high, because, like many consumers, I value fairness in pricing, and am turned off by prices that appear to be artificially inflated in order to exploit demand to

the point that it makes me question my overall support to the product and/or company

. And I

know

that this view is not that unusual. And the reason Obtena's argument fails is because charging $25 for a skin is brand new in their business model. The fact that GW2 has been running with moderate success using a cash shop for a few years is not a useful data point in supporting the claim that the prices are fine.

If you disagree, that's fine, but don't act like your argument is more philosophically sound or that you have any clearer an objective answer to this quandary than I do.

I do not mean to suggest that you are not entitled to your opinion, which is that the price is too high. I only mean to state that based on these facts:

1. Mount skins are new.
2. Since they are new, they have no price history
3. The price was set at $25.
4. The price has not been lowered.
5. New options were introduced, which did not affect the pricing model of the single skin option.

The logical conclusion is that ArenaNet is meeting their revenue projection which means that the price point is not too high, it is just too high for you personally.

Rolls Royce sells cars for $450,000. That price point is not "too high", because they sell them at that price point for a profit. That price point is too high for me though, because I don't want to spend that much on a car.

I will even state that I am completely with you with regard to mount skins. $25 is substantially more than I am willing to pay for a mount skin, however, until ArenaNet either lowers the price or changes the delivery model completely, the logical assumption is that they have priced it correctly for the target market.

Yes, but they get away with that due to the allure of exclusivity in the upper class economy (insert eye roll here), but they also have a lot of features and components that help drive up the cost to manufacture, and the selling point is likewise inflated. I'm not sure how comparable this is.

The only nitpick I'll make is that I think it's too early for us to conclude that the prices are fine just because they haven't gone down. For starters, Anet has a track record of failing to admit mistakes and moving slowly to correct course. What concerns me most is the indirect effect of making prices too high on any item - it tends to have a more significant effect in the long term even if they are meeting revenue goals in the short term. My feeling is that Anet needs to tread a bit more carefully about burning customers that would otherwise be loyal supporters by creating a perception that they are price gouging with vanity items.

There needs to be some correction here; Anet has shown in the past they are open to adjusting prices on GS because of profitability, even to the point of stopping to offer items completely when they can't be sold at a reasonable price to make them profitable. The 'speed' that this is done is a negative cost to THEM, not US so if there is a failure to admit mistakes and moving slow to correct course IN THIS INSTANCE, then the pain is on them.

You continue to use language that pushes the idea there is a 'right' price for the goods. It's not that the price is too high; it's that the market isn't there for the item at the given price to make it profitable ... as was the case for why Anet stopped selling full armor sets. The price is set based on targets for revenues and assumptions (which at this point are probably pretty good) about their market audience. Until we know the details of the financials of how they run this business, any implication they are price gouging on vanity items is laughable. Think about that for a second ... Price gouging on VANITY items ... that should set off alarm bells for you. People who buy vanity items aren't price gouged .. they are willingly spending their money on completely cosmetic items they don't need ... not sure how else to explain that.

[Bearhugger.4326]

I absolutely despise MTX (including cosmetic) and I nearly never buy them, but I have a lot more patience with GW2 having them than with pay-to-play MMOs double-dipping in MTX and sub fees. I understand that it's Anet's only stream of revenue outside of expansions, and I'm glad they have enough class to avoid defiling their game with paid loot boxes, which is sadly getting rare for US game devs.

I find the "anti-annoyance" permanent items like gathering tools and bank slots to be a worthy purchase if you plan to play for a long time, because they flat out make the game more fun to play. I hate accidentally wasting an Orichalcum ore on a mythril mining pick because I was trying to save gold, so I picked up the infinite gathering tools and I think it was worth it. (But I got them on a sale.) That's the only kind of MTX I buy, and once you have them all, that's it.

The cosmetics actually hurt the game's popularity in my opinion though. If you're going to reward with cosmetics-only, don't put most of the new ones in the cash shop! My character is still wearing the Draconic/Heritage mix-and-match armor set she had in 2012 because the new armors that I happen to like are all in the cash shop. (Don't really like the ones added for free, sorry.) That's not going to be a popular opinion but I'd honestly rather buy LS episodes 10$ each and have all cosmetics as in-game rewards than what we have now. If each LW episode had a skin to craft on top of the extended story, that alone would be worth the asking price in my book.

[Yamazuki.6073]

@PookieDaWombat.6209 said:

@"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:While I don't disagree, I'm curious: how do you expect ANet to make money so they may continue to give you free content?

That's kind of like asking who do we think will make more money: a store that sells toothbrushes for 2 dollars or one that sells them for 20.

That 20 dollar toothbrush better be able to reverse gum disease and enamel loss. If not, and if its basically the same as the other store's toothbrush, then there is a clear pricing issue.

End of the day, more people will be willing to put more money down with realistic pricing, but Anet doesn't follow that business model. This is a sad cycle because what that means is new players with deep pockets rush to buy the inflated priced items, temporarily giving Anet a cash bump, but ultimately its not sustainable so they put more mediocre things in the store for higher prices to make up for any financial losses. Older players continue to be disenfranchised by these tactics, stop spending money or even playing and Anet prays for the next round of short term whales to fill the coffers.

Selling more doesn't mean you actually profit more. Amazon for example was losing money for quite a while despite selling a massive amount of products. Even following your example, a cheaper tooth brush is just that, where as the one higher in price would generally be electric which would make sense it costs more. This would be equivalent to something with visual/sound effects costing less than something that had them. If you don't want to pay for the extras, then don't.

ANet isn't even selling their "product" for more than other games. You'll pay just as much on other games for items that are character bound, resulting in you spending more on it if you played more than a single character.

[SleepingDragon.6054]

New raptor skin is out and they're charging £17 for it—albeit a bit cheaper than the best skins usually are (2k gems is, what, £20-25?) Most people won't pay for this kind of thing with their time or money. They're catering to the few lucky idiots who have a skewed sense of the value of their money, or the people who need genuine mental help for the amount of time they'll dedicate to getting 'skins'.

Like... You what? x'D Go and buy another game, get more bang for your buck. Way more bang for your buck. The discrepancies in pricing throughout this game are insane. Play the content you've paid for and move on, the BLTC is a major red flag and sign of GW2's state and end.

[kharmin.7683]

So, you're saying that the game is dying?

[dace.8019]

I can't agree harder with the OP. The first thing I do when contemplating gem store (or any mtx) purchase is compare the value to the game itself. While almost nothing looks good in this light (which helps maintain a degree of prudence) when something looks particularly egregious I can't buy it. Like costing the same as the game or an expansion for a skin or effect. It reflects badly on the company because I wonder "Do they think I'm a sucker?" and that perception about a business asking me for money is bad for that business. And I do spend money on Gem store here and there, so ANet aren't all bad on this front but they do have some items in there that are, frankly, a rip-off.

[lare.5129]

@ZeftheWicked.3076 said:Then you're asked to shell out 25 euros for just a minor animation...why you sure that minor animation should be for everyone?