Recent developments in mount skin pricing.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

Cheaper prices don't always lead to more revenue. In the second MOB quote above (offered by Just a Flesh Wound -- ty!), MOB lists two issues with skins (style items):

(1) some people will like them, others will dislike them; and(2) the GW2 store is not set up in a way that supports offering a huge number of options.

Both of those factors are going to limit sales of skins. What those issues mean for revenue is that:

(1) no item is going to appeal to every buyer; and(2) the volume of items which would need to be available to compensate for revenue loss due to lower individual item prices increases in relation to the price reduction, to a point where revenue will be lost because people tend not to shop when the shopping experience makes it difficult to find what they want. Just ask anyone in retail how important a "shoppable" store is to revenue.

Finding a sweet spot for pricing is what's important. That sweet spot is the point at which the price produces the most revenue. For any given skin, that spot may be beyond what most people will want to spend. For others, it's going to seem fair.

The likelihood that a vast majority of possible buyers will believe the price to be "good" is related to how low the price is both in absolute and relative terms. Absolute in this context would be a case where a player has a threshold determined by what they are willing or able to spend. Relative in this context relates to an anchor price. If items like Item X are normally priced at cost Y, and Item X is priced at Y-200 gems, its price looks good to some buyers, even though it may still not look good to those with an absolute cap on what they're willing to spend. That latter point is why sales work.

Given the variations in mount pricing, ANet could still be looking for the sweet spot. I expect more changes going forward.

[Shroedingers Chupacabra.29]

True about shoppability, but without increasing the number of items offered (so, with no effect on shoppability), but just reducing the pricing on the highest priced items some, increased revenue could be realized. This is really the sweet spot question that most of us would like to see investigated, I believe (tell me if I'm wrong, guys and gals).

[Ayrilana.1396]

Lower prices may also make converting gold to gems for enticing that spending real world money. This would be money that Anet doesn’t receive as a result.

[TheOrlyFactor.8341]

@Zedek.8932 said:This is not 1994 anymore where id Software created DooM with like 10 guys...

Which is still the best game ever made, btw.

[mindcircus.1506]

@"Cuddy.6247" said:At this point I think I'd rather just get all of this stuff as game rewards and in collections and pay a $15/month membership sub that doesn't have any benefits to it other than supporting ANet's delivery.

And I agree. This would be how I would prefer the game and I would gladly fork over 20 a month, maybe 25.

But if you ask 100 people what originally brought them to this franchise, I promise you "lack of monthly fee" was at the top of most people's lists.

[TheMagickDoll.7594]

I have a personal dislike for practice of the whole "pay money for a chance at something you want" mentality. To me, its pretty obvious the single item mount skin is purposely over priced to make the gambling mount skin option look more attractive. 400 gems for a mount skin, seems reasonable, 400 gems for a random mount skin, no thanks. Why I have such a hatred for the black lion chests, which is even worse practice that I will never buy into nor will ever support.

[artemis.6781]

@Cuddy.6247 said:

@Martimus.6027 said:I make pretty good money and can afford to buy stuff off the store I want, but part of having money is recognizing when something is just too expensive. These items, once created, have no production cost anymore. They're virtual items that cost nothing to produce. If they want more money, they could easily lower prices across the board and make so many more sales. I would buy more if the prices weren't so high.

Yeah, the prices aren't very good. Between black lion chests, mounts, black lion weapons and other additions to the gem store a month can end up costing like $50-75 to stay on top of. The prices are a little fudgy. At this point I think I'd rather just get all of this stuff as game rewards and in collections and pay a $15/month membership sub that doesn't have any benefits to it other than supporting ANet's delivery.

If this game ever went to sub, I'd quit along with many others I would assume.

[TheOrlyFactor.8341]

@artemis.6781 said:

@Cuddy.6247 said:

@Martimus.6027 said:I make pretty good money and can afford to buy stuff off the store I want, but part of having money is recognizing when something is just too expensive. These items, once created, have no production cost anymore. They're virtual items that cost nothing to produce. If they want more money, they could easily lower prices across the board and make so many more sales. I would buy more if the prices weren't so high.

Yeah, the prices aren't very good. Between black lion chests, mounts, black lion weapons and other additions to the gem store a month can end up costing like $50-75 to stay on top of. The prices are a little fudgy. At this point I think I'd rather just get all of this stuff as game rewards and in collections and pay a $15/month membership sub that doesn't have any benefits to it other than supporting ANet's delivery.

If this game ever went to sub, I'd quit along with many others I would assume.

+1 on the quitting-if-sub front.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

@"Shroedingers Chupacabra.2978" said:True about shoppability, but without increasing the number of items offered (so, with no effect on shoppability), but just reducing the pricing on the highest priced items some, increased revenue could be realized. This is really the sweet spot question that most of us would like to see investigated, I believe (tell me if I'm wrong, guys and gals).

I believe ANet is trying to find that sweet spot. However, it may be different for different items. We see different price points. Some of the garish mount skins are priced at 2K gems on release. Others are released with a "real" price of 2K but are offered at "20% off" initially. Packs are priced at 400 gems per skin (must buy all 5) or at 320/skin if offered at 20% off (which I believe has been the case with all bundles, iirc). Depending on how the sales of individual mounts in the Istan License offering go, we may see that option at the same, lower or higher when the next license rolls out.

It seems reasonable to assume that ANet would get greater revenue if skins are offered at lower prices, thus encouraging more people to buy them. However, that was what pricing was like with gliders and glider/backpack bundles -- and ANet changed course. Is that greed or a mistake on ANet's part? We don't know.

What we do know is that revenue was up in the Hot release quarter, and the quarter after it. Revenue then decreased dramatically in Q2 2016, in fact it dropped to a new low for the game and continued to decline slowly. Revenue has increased in the last two reported quarters (PoF sales to be sure are likely to be a big part of that). Q1 2018 (which we won't see until early May) may be more informative as to whether mount pricing is working better for ANet. If it has been, expect pricing to remain as is until that changes.

[AliamRationem.5172]

@Martimus.6027 said:I make pretty good money and can afford to buy stuff off the store I want, but part of having money is recognizing when something is just too expensive. These items, once created, have no production cost anymore. They're virtual items that cost nothing to produce. If they want more money, they could easily lower prices across the board and make so many more sales. I would buy more if the prices weren't so high.

There's a sweet spot somewhere in there, and I expect ANet is far better positioned to determine where that might be than we are. They have years of data collected on the cash shop. Personally, I think the random mounts licenses are an excellent deal. I've purchased many of them already and I'm overall pleased with my purchases. To each their own.

[Hyper Cutter.9376]

The mount skins that aren't 2k gem premium skins or seasonal bundles should be sold exactly the way glider skins (the equivalent cosmetic items related to HoT) are sold. Gliders cost 400-500 gems for a guaranteed glider of your choice, and even the glider/back item combos only cost 700.

[Shroedingers Chupacabra.29]

It's confirmed. My source was guilty of "messy communication". What he intended to convey, to paraphrase, is that "all mount skins in the future will be available through a non-random method".

[Biff.5312]

1200 gems is a lot. I was hoping to see a chosen skin option for 800. That would be reasonable imo. As it is, I'd only do it if I REALLY wanted the skin. On the other hand, it's a HUGE improvement from buying random chances. You're right that it turns out buying the big package turns out to be the cheapest long-term option, but at least going forward I will only spend on what I really like.

[Rauderi.8706]

@Cuddy.6247 said:Yeah, the prices aren't very good. Between black lion chests, mounts, black lion weapons and other additions to the gem store a month can end up costing like $50-75 to stay on top of. The prices are a little fudgy. At this point I think I'd rather just get all of this stuff as game rewards and in collections and pay a $15/month membership sub that doesn't have any benefits to it other than supporting ANet's delivery.

Here's the sinister thing: $15/month games like WoW or FFXIV also have cash shop items: unique mounts and mini pets, discontinued outfits, etc.So odds are, $15/mo would still lock you out from being able to obtain that certain supercool mount in game.

Though, for all those wishing they could subscribe $15/month, don't you wish there was a 1200-gem buy option? :star:(And slippery-slope, slight discounts for larger cash investments: 1300 for $15, 1750 for $20, 2200 for $25 . . . Heck, $5 increments would be dandy...)

[Shroedingers Chupacabra.29]

Well, there are also some games with tiered subscriptions options that include a stipend of currency for the cash shops. I've seen tiers as low as $3/month on less well-known games.

[ReaverKane.7598]

@"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

@Martimus.6027 said:

@"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

@Martimus.6027 said:I make pretty good money and can afford to buy stuff off the store I want, but part of having money is recognizing when something is just too expensive. These items, once created, have no production cost anymore.The game costs money to keep running. They have to keep paying for artists and writers and servers and rent and janitors and secretaries and advertising and toilet paper and everything else a business needs to pay for. If they don't charge for things that have value but 'have no production cost anymore' where is the money going to come from?

They're virtual items that cost nothing to produce. If they want more money, they could easily lower prices across the board and make so many more sales. I would buy more if the prices weren't so high.

If they lower the prices, they may sell more, but then they have to keep cranking out new low-priced items at a faster rate, because people have bought everything they want. And if they crank out stuff at a faster rate, how do they sell stuff when the market gets saturated? At what point do people stop buying because 'That jackal mount isn't different enough from the last twelve they put out for me to care' or 'The new sword skin is pretty, but I already have 500 and don't need more sword skins.'

While I felt the first RNG selection was overstretched (too many similar skins, too big a pool to choose from) I thought the second one was much, much better. Nearly all the skins were amazing, much higher chance of getting something you wanted. And it was great to be able to get them at such a low price. I think I bought about half, got many wonderful skins.

If it's true that there won't be a cheap RNG version of new skins any more, then everyone's just going to have to pay full price for everything. That's the price of 'success' in your battle against the discounted RNG skins.

I"m not arguing for an extreme, here. I'm arguing for cheaper therefore more sales. Not practically-free-so-literally-everyone-has-it as you are implying that I meant.

I think you will find that whatever price you believe is reasonable, you will have plenty of people claiming it's still too expensive and demanding it go down further. When does the price stop going down, if they lower it every time someone complains?

The answer to this is easy! Branded Mounts, they sold them at a fair price with good looking mounts, and i definetly see those way more often than any of the 2000 gem mounts.Mounts were extremely overpriced compared to all other gemstore items, and its noticeable, you could half the price of mounts and they'd still be some of the most expensive single-items (not bundles) in the gemstore. AT HALF THE PRICE!!That's why people don't buy them, and that's why Arena Net is not going to monetize them half as well as they could.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@"Shroedingers Chupacabra.2978" said:It's confirmed. My source was guilty of "messy communication". What he intended to convey, to paraphrase, is that "all mount skins in the future will be available through a non-random method".

It's good to know that what O'Brien said publicly is what they are saying privately.(Trust... but verify still applies.)

Thanks for posting :)

[John Valdea.5879]

i like the fact that the new adoption license has a more expensive selection ticket... when they bring back the original license i really hope they give that option then as well... i would really love a decent jackalope skin for that worthless gerbil trash.... a jackalope skin is all im interested on him... i just refuse to spend 100-300 for a maybe i'll get the one skin.

If they dont add a selection ticket at higher prices then their marketing tactics will reach a lower step on the shady rung of not only do you maybe get it then but to top it off they're trying to manipulate players into the buy rush of limited because players already refused their initial attempt to bleed them dry for gacha gifts.

[Cuddy.6247]

@Rauderi.8706 said:

@Cuddy.6247 said:Yeah, the prices aren't very good. Between black lion chests, mounts, black lion weapons and other additions to the gem store a month can end up costing like $50-75 to stay on top of. The prices are a little fudgy. At this point I think I'd rather just get all of this stuff as game rewards and in collections and pay a $15/month membership sub that doesn't have any benefits to it other than supporting ANet's delivery.

Here's the sinister thing: $15/month games like WoW or FFXIV

also

have cash shop items: unique mounts and mini pets, discontinued outfits, etc.So odds are, $15/mo would still lock you out from being able to obtain that certain supercool mount in game.

Though, for all those wishing they could subscribe $15/month, don't you wish there was a 1200-gem buy option? :star:(And slippery-slope, slight discounts for larger cash investments: 1300 for $15, 1750 for $20, 2200 for $25 . . . Heck, $5 increments would be dandy...)

Not nearly to the same extent...Idk if you've ever looked over in WoW's cash shop, but it's a drop in a bucket compared to what's available from just questing.

[Cuddy.6247]

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

@Martimus.6027 said:

@"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

@Martimus.6027 said:I make pretty good money and can afford to buy stuff off the store I want, but part of having money is recognizing when something is just too expensive. These items, once created, have no production cost anymore.The game costs money to keep running. They have to keep paying for artists and writers and servers and rent and janitors and secretaries and advertising and toilet paper and everything else a business needs to pay for. If they don't charge for things that have value but 'have no production cost anymore' where is the money going to come from?

They're virtual items that cost nothing to produce. If they want more money, they could easily lower prices across the board and make so many more sales. I would buy more if the prices weren't so high.

If they lower the prices, they may sell more, but then they have to keep cranking out new low-priced items at a faster rate, because people have bought everything they want. And if they crank out stuff at a faster rate, how do they sell stuff when the market gets saturated? At what point do people stop buying because 'That jackal mount isn't different enough from the last twelve they put out for me to care' or 'The new sword skin is pretty, but I already have 500 and don't need more sword skins.'

While I felt the first RNG selection was overstretched (too many similar skins, too big a pool to choose from) I thought the second one was much, much better. Nearly all the skins were amazing, much higher chance of getting something you wanted. And it was great to be able to get them at such a low price. I think I bought about half, got many wonderful skins.

If it's true that there won't be a cheap RNG version of new skins any more, then everyone's just going to have to pay full price for everything. That's the price of 'success' in your battle against the discounted RNG skins.

I"m not arguing for an extreme, here. I'm arguing for cheaper therefore more sales. Not practically-free-so-literally-everyone-has-it as you are implying that I meant.

I think you will find that whatever price you believe is reasonable, you will have plenty of people claiming it's still too expensive and demanding it go down further. When does the price stop going down, if they lower it every time someone complains?

The answer to this is easy! Branded Mounts, they sold them at a fair price with good looking mounts, and i definetly see those way more often than any of the 2000 gem mounts.Mounts were extremely overpriced compared to all other gemstore items, and its noticeable, you could half the price of mounts and they'd still be some of the most expensive single-items (not bundles) in the gemstore. AT HALF THE PRICE!!That's why people don't buy them, and that's why Arena Net is not going to monetize them half as well as they could.

Those new datamined exosuit mounts look they'll sell like hotcakes too. Really good sets worth selling.

[ReaverKane.7598]

@Cuddy.6247 said:

@ReaverKane.7598 said:

@"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

@Martimus.6027 said:

@"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

@Martimus.6027 said:I make pretty good money and can afford to buy stuff off the store I want, but part of having money is recognizing when something is just too expensive. These items, once created, have no production cost anymore.The game costs money to keep running. They have to keep paying for artists and writers and servers and rent and janitors and secretaries and advertising and toilet paper and everything else a business needs to pay for. If they don't charge for things that have value but 'have no production cost anymore' where is the money going to come from?

They're virtual items that cost nothing to produce. If they want more money, they could easily lower prices across the board and make so many more sales. I would buy more if the prices weren't so high.

If they lower the prices, they may sell more, but then they have to keep cranking out new low-priced items at a faster rate, because people have bought everything they want. And if they crank out stuff at a faster rate, how do they sell stuff when the market gets saturated? At what point do people stop buying because 'That jackal mount isn't different enough from the last twelve they put out for me to care' or 'The new sword skin is pretty, but I already have 500 and don't need more sword skins.'

While I felt the first RNG selection was overstretched (too many similar skins, too big a pool to choose from) I thought the second one was much, much better. Nearly all the skins were amazing, much higher chance of getting something you wanted. And it was great to be able to get them at such a low price. I think I bought about half, got many wonderful skins.

If it's true that there won't be a cheap RNG version of new skins any more, then everyone's just going to have to pay full price for everything. That's the price of 'success' in your battle against the discounted RNG skins.

I"m not arguing for an extreme, here. I'm arguing for cheaper therefore more sales. Not practically-free-so-literally-everyone-has-it as you are implying that I meant.

I think you will find that whatever price you believe is reasonable, you will have plenty of people claiming it's still too expensive and demanding it go down further. When does the price stop going down, if they lower it every time someone complains?

The answer to this is easy! Branded Mounts, they sold them at a fair price with good looking mounts, and i definetly see those way more often than any of the 2000 gem mounts.Mounts were extremely overpriced compared to all other gemstore items, and its noticeable, you could half the price of mounts and they'd still be some of the most expensive single-items (not bundles) in the gemstore. AT HALF THE PRICE!!That's why people don't buy them, and that's why Arena Net is not going to monetize them half as well as they could.

Those new datamined exosuit mounts look they'll sell like hotcakes too. Really good sets worth selling.

Yeah they kinda do, not sure if i'm buying those, but it's likely.

[starlinvf.1358]

@Ayrilana.1396 said:Lower prices may also make converting gold to gems for enticing that spending real world money. This would be money that Anet doesn’t receive as a result.

Thats kind of a false statement given that the Gem exchange is almost identical to EVE's Plex market in concept. In fact, if Anet really wanted to manipulate the market, they can inject and retract Gems from the exchange, since the prices are all system driven rather then buyer/seller defined like the TP is. Lower the gem price of an item, but lead up to it by bleeding the gem supply to inflate prices. That has a 2-fold effect- Players are sinking more gold for less gems, which promotes just buying gems directly. And secondly, encourages people to buy gems to sell to the exchange for more gold. Time it along side something which will cause a lot of TP trade volume, and you can immediately sink the majority of that traded gold via fees. Its a balancing act... but one thats entirely possible if you know where the trigger thresholds are.

[Ayrilana.1396]

@starlinvf.1358 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:Lower prices may also make converting gold to gems for enticing that spending real world money. This would be money that Anet doesn’t receive as a result.

Thats kind of a false statement given that the Gem exchange is almost identical to EVE's Plex market in concept. In fact, if Anet really wanted to manipulate the market, they can inject and retract Gems from the exchange, since the prices are all system driven rather then buyer/seller defined like the TP is. Lower the gem price of an item, but lead up to it by bleeding the gem supply to inflate prices. That has a 2-fold effect- Players are sinking more gold for less gems, which promotes just buying gems directly. And secondly, encourages people to buy gems to sell to the exchange for more gold. Time it along side something which will cause a lot of TP trade volume, and you can immediately sink the majority of that traded gold via fees. Its a balancing act... but one thats entirely possible if you know where the trigger thresholds are.

Except that’s it’s not a false statement. If you believe otherwise then explain how.

I really hope that your suggestion wasn’t serious. Not many people would appreciate that type of deception.

[Cuddy.6247]

@Ayrilana.1396 said:

@starlinvf.1358 said:

@Ayrilana.1396 said:Lower prices may also make converting gold to gems for enticing that spending real world money. This would be money that Anet doesn’t receive as a result.

Thats kind of a false statement given that the Gem exchange is almost identical to EVE's Plex market in concept. In fact, if Anet really wanted to manipulate the market, they can inject and retract Gems from the exchange, since the prices are all system driven rather then buyer/seller defined like the TP is. Lower the gem price of an item, but lead up to it by bleeding the gem supply to inflate prices. That has a 2-fold effect- Players are sinking more gold for less gems, which promotes just buying gems directly. And secondly, encourages people to buy gems to sell to the exchange for more gold. Time it along side something which will cause a lot of TP trade volume, and you can immediately sink the majority of that traded gold via fees. Its a balancing act... but one thats entirely possible if you know where the trigger thresholds are.

Except that’s it’s not a false statement. If you believe otherwise then explain how.

I really hope that your suggestion wasn’t serious. Not many people would appreciate that type of deception.

Gems are paid for with money. The value of gems to gold and gold to gems is dependent on sales of gems as well. So gems, even when bought with gold, were originally price-pointed with money. If lowering gem values caused them to have any significant issues, then ANet has a spending problem - not an income one.

[Eypheha.5831]

Expensive and from a practical point of view, not really worth the price. I rarely look at the various skins of the characters I see and I'm certainly not impressed with the selection, anyway. I suppose at some point they'll make a griffon-dragon skin. Now maybe they're waiting, but I might be interested in that. Those that are offered...well, they still look like griffons. Meh...same for the other skins.