Anet; please let us gift or sell back purchased outfits

[Ice.7956]

If we gift them we loose them. If we sell them back then maybe 10% value seems fair. What would be the harm in allowing us to do that?

[Zaklex.6308]

@Ice.7956 said:If we gift them we loose them. If we sell them back then maybe 10% value seems fair. What would be the harm in allowing us to do that?

Wait, why would you even want to gift or sell back a purchased outfit...didn't you buy it for a reason in the first place?

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

Unlikely to ever happen.The CS Team can't re-lock anything that's been unlocked in the Wardrobe/Account.

Sorry.

[b k.1648]

The harm would be a loss of profits on ArenaNet's end, because people would buy fewer gems as a result.

[avey.4201]

I played years before Pharus was released, so Kudzu was the only option, now with the release of Pharus I could go out of my way to spend another 3k+ to not have this ugly cabbage stick on blue animation guard, but then I'd be stuck with a 3k+ bow I can't salvage, can't merchant, and can't list on Trading Post.Anets response will always be economy, though GW1 had a fun economy.I'd rather see outfits be armor skins, outfits look cool, but I can't mix, and match so I never invested in any, though the fractal researchers make me wanna go storm trooper.

[SeikeNz.3526]

@Ben K.6238 said:The harm would be a loss of profits on ArenaNet's end, because people would buy fewer gems as a result.

someone has to buy the outfit in first place

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

But the person the Outfit was re-gifted to would then no longer need to purchase the Outfit, if it was an Outfit they were interested in acquiring. Thus, a loss of revenue.

It doesn't matter, though, because once an Outfit is unlocked in the Wardrobe, there is no way to remove it.

[b k.1648]

@SeikeNz.3526 said:

@Ben K.6238 said:The harm would be a loss of profits on ArenaNet's end, because people would buy fewer gems as a result.

someone has to buy the outfit in first place

That makes just one sale, instead of potentially two. It's fair to say that many recipients of re-gifted outfits would never purchase it themselves, but even if 5% did, 1.05 is still a bigger multiplier than 1.

ANet have no positive incentive to do this, however nice it would be if they did.

[Game of Bones.8975]

@avey.4201 said:I played years before Pharus was released, so Kudzu was the only option, now with the release of Pharus I could go out of my way to spend another 3k+ to not have this ugly cabbage stick on blue animation guard, but then I'd be stuck with a 3k+ bow I can't salvage, can't merchant, and can't list on Trading Post.

You can still transform a Legendary into any skin in your inventory; you get the look you want and maintain the stat swapping ability. The only thing you lose is the animations of the original Legendary weapon.I've done that on a couple of my Legendaries: Twilight doesn't fit my character (and it's become too popular) but Belinda's Greatsword looks great.

[starlinvf.1358]

The digital storefront model operates on the principle that the goal isn't specifically to sell many instances of a particular "product", but to habituate as much as the userbase as possible to increase individual spending over time. Because an unlock system has an upper limit on what individual will buy, teaching them to spend on things big and small, and then SHOWING IT OFF TO THEIR FRIENDS, so they start joining in on the gem store, is the REAL goal.

Its not in Anet's overall interest to create a secondary market for gem store items..... which is why you can't Resell the majority of things you get from BLC and Gemstore purchases. Most modern games try to prevent that for this very reason; and the few that allow it, bake it into their business model.

But theres an even bigger issue with the premise of the trade-in...... it opens the door one of two scenarios from other games that would be resoundingly negative to the playerbase as a consumer.
Version One sets a precedent of obfuscation via trade in value, creating an environment where Consumers have an incentive to give up value over time, while also convincing us to spend more in the process. This is logical fallacy that drives the Gamestop used game model, except the game publisher is the one making out like a bandit.
Version Two is something like the Overwatch "no dupes" model, but somehow worse since we might possibly be paying over the odds for the guaranteed unlock, in lieu of or in addition to, the normal RNG Loot box method of the BLCs.

In both cases, the danger is normalizing the idea of trade-id discounts to increase the frequency of purchases, but ironically is more likely to increase overall spending rather then reduce it. It plays further into the existing issue of the value of digital goods in the first place, and how this alacart approach to cosmetics is already a borderline scam given how much they charge vs how much it costs to produce them. And this in on top the already sketchy nature of the whole business model.

The ideal direction we should be pushing is to get more practical value out of purchases we make.... not encourage them further to incentivize "churning" so we buy more often.