Mount skins are too expensive

[Fuchslein.8639]

16 minutes ago, genjonah.1253 said:

Artists have to come up with the concept art. Designers have to render it. Programmers have to make it workable with current code. Sometimes, new animations are required there, too (see hummingbird skin for skimmer). 
 

hundreds of hours of work. Not counting the initial development of the game, the mount systems, continuing servers, bug fixes, etc. All on a game that costs you nothing to play if you don’t want to.

 

pay the cost of gems for skins if you want them. Or don’t get them. It really is that simple, stop demanding things from artists and workers for even less money than they’re already giving out their talent for, please. These are not even QoL enhancements, purely aesthetic, that they never had to make in the first place.

With this logic, how can HOT and POF and now EOD be so cheap?

I guess just so that more people buy it? ^^''

[The Fear.3865]

1 hour ago, PMoneyMobileRobot.4630 said:

I've personally never bought a mount skin, but if I was going to it would be the cheaper gamble option which for me isn't ideal because I hate gambling, but I'm not going to pay a lot for something that should be ernable in game.  I get it's free to play or buy to play they gotta make money somehow.  I'd just rather they were ernable in game.

You are not the target of these 25 bucks skins marketting. 

[genjonah.1253]

One moves the game forward. The other is aesthetic bonuses. There is significant difference, both in intent and in market. For a game that, again, you can play for free, which is a tremendous gift in and of itself. Continuing to demand more of a free game shows the character of the demander; not the quality of the supplier 

[PeterRedhill.3182]

7 minutes ago, The Fear.3865 said:

You are not the target of these 25 bucks skins marketting. 

Clearly.

[Kusumura.8642]

On 9/20/2021 at 1:30 PM, Shael.4703 said:

You fail to understand what is the issue is.

Let's use your logic: "if you are too poor to afford Gems in your country, then you need to get a job or start a business".

...

Put yourselves in the shoes of others and you will understand how the world works.

Snipping a bit because wall of text plus a wall of incoming text would be horrendous to subject people to, but you, dear Shael, Sir and/or Madam, have just won the internet for today. Absolutely nothing to do with anything else I have to say, I just wanted to give you my kudos.

I am going to a very quick, very brief target market analysis of the game's market from a marketing perspective (Because that's what I'm qualified to do IRL), and then together we are going to check whether it meets the needs of those that play it:
At what point(s) on Mazlow's hierarchy does an online video game appeal to a person?
Starting from bottom to top, and again, this is just quick and off the top of my head because I am not being paid for this and I will be frelled if I go looking for numbers and research and in-depth figures when there is no money involved. I am not doing Anet Marketing Division's job for them;

Physiological
Nope. The game (Or any game for that matter) is going to do nothing to keep you alive. May, if anything, help to do the opposite. No game will put a roof over your head, feed you, keep you watered, or keep you warm.

 

Safety
Nope. The game will not do anything to protect you, or your life, offer you any kind of stability in that life, nor will it keep you in gainful employment, nor will it ensure your health.
I would hear arguments for 'stability' - but all that I have ever heard have only highlighted just how bad online games are for it due to the market practices at large being incredibly predatory and manipulative in nature.
A casino is stable. You always know you are going to lose. But you are manipulated and tricked into thinking that you have a chance because you see all of the small wins of everyone around you and the occasional big one - but you are conditioned to never think about the losses incurred and the fact that majority of those people are walking away at a financial deficit.
In the case of Guild Wars 2, at the very least, we avoid this one, thank the Eight and One for that.

Yeah, I am going to call out EA Games for targeting people in this category with their beyond monumentally horrendous gambling practices.

Shame, shame, shame.

 

Belonging
Interestingly, you can argue that it can replace a family or social circle - but that is in a case where someone is experiencing a deficit.
Games DO NOT in reality offer any meaningful substitute for real world human connection, as much as they can offer a facsimile and escape from having to deal with that deficit. It is a trap that all too many gamers fall into and one that is difficult to get out of once you are in it, and a topic for another post that is not this one.
The point remains though that a good portion of the community does, in fact, fall into here, and those people in this category for whom the game manages to hit are usually financially poor, but are willing to spend money to maintain the appearance of connection with others, false though it may be in actuality.
It is why your father keeps looking out of the living room window to look at the neighbour's lawn every five minutes (As though anything will have changed about ASTROTURF in the last hour, Jesus dad). What are they using to trim the grass?! What is the weather on the days they are mowing it?! Dinkleburg bought a ride-on mower, so I have to go out and get me one of them so I can look like I am keeping up with him and we can chat about them!

 

Esteem
Bingo.
People at this level of the hierarchy are not stressed about those things on the lower levels. There is no tiger about to murder them, the pantry is fully stocked, they cannot feel the snow outside with how high the AC has been cranked. They are at minimal risk of losing there position in life. They have fully formed relationships with their loved ones (Be it parents, spouse, offspring, friends, etc.).
So long as they maintain the status quo of their life, they do not need to fret over what they have disappearing. Maintaining that status quo means that these people are time-poor. They have full-time jobs, they have families to maintain, they have commitments that mean taking care of their health is more important than the game.
For them, the game provides a small measure of achievement and prestige. These are the people that you find crafting every legendary in the game, maxing out all their Reward tracks at least once, getting map completion of all the content available, capping out their Achievement Points, etc. etc.
And they do it in their off-time. What little of it they have.
This category is, while the most likely to engage with the system (Gold to gem conversion!), are the least likely to invest  themselves financially into the system. They have families to take care of and lives to maintain. What unspoken for income they have is far more likely to be spent with those they care about, rather than on something wholly selfish (Which.. games kind of are. "You could be spending that money toward our family vacation to Disneyland!", would argue their significant other).

 

Self-Actualisation
Not even worth mentioning. I only bring it up so nobody can accuse me of forgetting it exists.
Elon Musk is not now, not later, and not ever going to be spending money in whatever games he plays, unless it is for the sheer giggles of it and because he is being recorded, because he is a content generating machine. "LOLOLOLOLOLOL watch as I buy $750 000 worth of gems and fluff up Anet's quarterly financials and drive their investors insane!"
Jeff Bezos is never going to spend money on games. Why would he? What need does he have that games fulfill?

The upper crust and higher echelons of society are the majority of this group, and not many of them care about games. Many of them are INCREDIBLY time-poor, as much as they are financially wealthy. Gaming is a niche interest, and does not fulfill anything substantial, as much as it is a wonderful way to express one's creativity at this level.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

With Mazlow's out of the way, let us break down specifically the two sections that the game does nail: Belonging and Esteem.

For those who seek Belonging out of the game: Please seek help. This game, nor any other, will truly give you the help you need. Why do I say this? Because the sick and twisted truth of the matter is that if you fall into this category, chances are very high that you are suffering with mental illness of some variety (Be it depression, anxiety, whatever else that holds you back from feeling a 'complete' or 'fulfilling' sense of social environment), so please. Get help. This game and all others prey upon your need to a truly Bond villain-esque degree.

Why am I coming on so strongly about this?
Belonging people are the ones that will spend money - and they will spend big. Money they do not actually have. They will spend rent money, food money, bill money, and whatever else, just so they can feel that they are Keeping Up with the Kardashians - and then suffer MAJORLY for it when those things still need paying afterwards.
They are also the players that do not have the focus (emotionally or mentally) to deal with Achievement Point hunting, running around doing map completion, or whatever else is actually required in 'playing the game'.

We all have people in this category in our guilds: These are the people that show up to any kind of thing with a degree of sociability (WvW zerging, dungeon runs, raids), but otherwise.. kind of just stand around Divinity's Reach doing... uhh, nothing? Alt+Tabbed watching other things, waiting for the next flash of false social connection they can find.

This is where a majority of the game's income comes from. That is HORRIBLE that we, as a society, have failed so badly that we would target people THIS vulnerable. It is NOT a matter of, "Well, they should just get another job!", nor, "Then why are they spending their money on games if they can't afford it?".
Online games trick and manipulate those who are vulnerable to this section into thinking and believing that they can genuinely help sate that human NEED to be social.

Let us move on!

 

For those seeking Esteem from the game, they have the mental clarity and wherewithal to set themselves a task and see it through. They plan ahead what they do, much as they do in real life; they have twenty year mortgages to pay off. What does it matter if it takes six months to get through a set of achievements, by comparison? It may take them six months, but that is because they spend maybe four hours a week doing them.
Does it matter to them if they take a little while to get the flashiest mount skin because of the current Gold-to-Gem conversion rate? No. They are seeking their own personal, self-satisfaction. As much as it is nice to show-off, they do not feel like they need to posture about what they have or do not have.

They have spare income that they would spend on the game, if the price point is correct.
From ALL OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS VERY THREAD AND ALL OVER REDDIT AND EVERYWHERE ELSE THAT SAY, "What? Why buy gems? The are expensive, but Anet's got to make money.. I just convert gold to gems lol", THE PRICE POINT IS CURRENTLY INCORRECT AND IS TOO HIGH FOR THIS GROUP'S INTEREST. Nobody from here is going to spend $35 to buy one skin from the cash shop. The Belonging group that we discussed earlier would, but not this group. This group has a social circle to consider. They are not just seeking their own self-interests. The choices they make have ramifications for the people surrounding them, meaning they are much less likely to make financial sacrifices.

 

------------------------------

With this thesis done (And I really should have handed this in as the final thesis of my marketing course - if I ever go near one again, I may just pilfer it for that purpose), I hope I have demonstrated to the naysayers why the pricing needs to change. Those it is hoping will engage with it are not the ones that are engaging with it. Those that really should not be engaging are. In both cases, there is just more suffering being spread around - minor setbacks of time for the Esteem group are likely to eventually drive them away ("Hey, can you cover X's shift tonight? She's out because her kid is sick" / "Daddy, I want to go to the park!" / "Hon can you pick up the kids? I need to go see mum, she said something's up with dad and he's being stubborn or whatever and I'm just going to let her vent.", all eventually lead to, "Ehh.. games are fun but I just don't really have time for them anymore I guess."), while those in the Belonging group --- I have said enough, but they are lead by the nose ring down a spiral they cannot themselves break free of until it is too late and what little social lives they may have had are in tatters.

[aspirine.6852]

Never bought one, I think they are too much gems too.. Not that it matters since they get sold anyway..

[kharmin.7683]

Why make it $5 then?  Why not $1?  That's even lower which should lead to even more sales, right?

[Kusumura.8642]

1 minute ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Why make it $5 then?  Why not $1?  That's even lower which should lead to even more sales, right?

I would say $7 would be.

Expensive enough that Anet does actually get something out of it, but cheap enough that nobody is heading for financial ruin because they want a half decent looking mount skin.

[kharmin.7683]

1 minute ago, Kusumura.8642 said:

I would say $7 would be.

Expensive enough that Anet does actually get something out of it, but cheap enough that nobody is heading for financial ruin because they want a half decent looking mount skin.

The problem that I have with this type of argument is that no one knows the in-depth financials at Anet.  Maybe the current pricing is just over the break-even point? 

Still, $20 for a skin that is not even required to complete game content is something that I would have a difficult time in describing as financial ruin.  Many people pay more than that per month for their cell phone service.  I would even argue that $20 is cheaper than an evening at the movies if one includes popcorn/soda/snacks plus the gas to get to and from the theater (or train/bus ticket or Uber). 

[Kusumura.8642]

2 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

The problem that I have with this type of argument is that no one knows the in-depth financials at Anet.  Maybe the current pricing is just over the break-even point? 

Still, $20 for a skin that is not even required to complete game content is something that I would have a difficult time in describing as financial ruin.  Many people pay more than that per month for their cell phone service.  I would even argue that $20 is cheaper than an evening at the movies if one includes popcorn/soda/snacks plus the gas to get to and from the theater (or train/bus ticket or Uber). 

If $20 is their break-even point at their current sales (Which I honestly have not met anybody other than myself out in the wild who just ponies up the cash for them and gets on with life), then they really need to reconsider their business model.

[Gibson.4036]

I think they're crazy expensive. The whole next expansion is only a little more than one mount skin. That boggles my mind.

However, there is clearly enough money in them that ANet is happy with the return on this price. At this point they've been offering them at various prices and on various sales enough to have good metrics on how demand changes based on price.

I'll note that it's not all about whales who have absurd amounts of extra cash to throw at mount skins. It's also the gem/gold economy. There are enough people in this game who spend enough time playing to earn (to me) astounding amounts of in game gold. They have it to spare to buy gems from people who don't have a lot of time, but have some cash to spend buying gems in order to sell them for gold.

The price in gems for mounts is not only set by people who can throw $25 at one. It's also set by people who can throw $25 at 352 gold and people who have 542 gold to buy gems. (Current exchange prices via GW2efficiency).

Edited September 21, 2021 by Gibson.4036

[Klowdy.3126]

1 hour ago, PMoneyMobileRobot.4630 said:

I'm not saying make it free, but if you want people to buy something you have to kinda meet them in the middle with what it is and what they are willing to pay for it.  It's not some solid gold toilet or anything like that.  It's a skin and regardless of how many hours it took to make if the consumer thinks it's only worth x you're never gonna sell it for y.  You just aren't going to.  Don't get me wrong you still have the shills who will well shill out for a solid gold toilet, but the majority of people are fine with porcelain.  It's cheaper and you can still use it for the same function.

 

I've personally never bought a mount skin, but if I was going to it would be the cheaper gamble option which for me isn't ideal because I hate gambling, but I'm not going to pay a lot for something that should be ernable in game.  I get it's free to play or buy to play they gotta make money somehow.  I'd just rather they were ernable in game.

The thing is, there are lots of people with lots of disposable income that buy the things as is. Look at Path of Exile. Their cheapest costume is about $35, some $55. And they keep making more, and making them more expensive, and people keep buying them. Or the $100-200 bundles. 

 

The setup GW2 has for acquiring mount skins is far better than most games I've seen. That said, I am also all for them making a few skin sets that are obtainable ingame. It seems outrageous that there isn't SOMETHING you can do ingame to change the basic skin to anything else, without a currency attached. Races/challenges seem the best route for this. Expand on something, while adding in relevant rewards.

[Gehenna.3625]

2 hours ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Lower cost does not always equate to more sales or profit.  The disillusionment in marketing in this thread is... unsurprising.

Indeed more sales doesn't mean more profit automatically, particularly when these sales are generated by lowering the price.

 

Let me illustrate (not for you but for the benefit of this thread):

 

Let's say that Anet sells an average of 1000 mount skins per month at 1200 gems each. So people spend 1.2 million gems per month.

Then Anet lowers the price to 500 gems and they sell 1700 of them. Then people spend  850K gems per month.

 

So in that example the price is lowered, Anet sells a hefty amount extra of them, but makes less money. So that's not in the interest of Anet.

Edited September 21, 2021 by Gehenna.3625

[kharmin.7683]

56 minutes ago, Kusumura.8642 said:

If $20 is their break-even point at their current sales (Which I honestly have not met anybody other than myself out in the wild who just ponies up the cash for them and gets on with life), then they really need to reconsider their business model.

Such hubris! 

[kharmin.7683]

51 minutes ago, Gibson.4036 said:

I think they're crazy expensive. The whole next expansion is only a little more than one mount skin. That boggles my mind.

However, there is clearly enough money in them that ANet is happy with the return on this price. At this point they've been offering them at various prices and on various sales enough to have good metrics on how demand changes based on price.

I'll note that it's not all about whales who have absurd amounts of extra cash to throw at mount skins. It's also the gem/gold economy. There are enough people in this game who spend enough time playing to earn (to me) astounding amounts of in game gold. They have it to spare to buy gems from people who don't have a lot of time, but have some cash to spend buying gems in order to sell them for gold.

The price in gems for mounts is not only set by people who can throw $25 at one. It's also set by people who can throw $25 at 352 gold and people who have 542 gold to buy gems. (Current exchange prices via GW2efficiency).

Or, perhaps, the expansion is crazy cheap by comparison?

[Gibson.4036]

2 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Or, perhaps, the expansion is crazy cheap by comparison?

It's all relative, right?

But yeah, even without the expansion, I can't justify $25 so one of my mounts has a particular look. Others can. And ArenaNet seems satisfied with their return.

Maybe, at some point, I'll have my characters' gear to the point where I won't be spending gold on that, and I'll slowly accumulate enough that I'll get a mount skin that way. Probably not, though. Higher up on the list would be paying to get rid of some of the annoyances in game, like small material storage slots or having to buy gathering tools.

[kharmin.7683]

1 minute ago, Gibson.4036 said:

It's all relative, right?

But yeah, even without the expansion, I can't justify $25 so one of my mounts has a particular look. Others can. And ArenaNet seems satisfied with their return.

Maybe, at some point, I'll have my characters' gear to the point where I won't be spending gold on that, and I'll slowly accumulate enough that I'll get a mount skin that way. Probably not, though. Higher up on the list would be paying to get rid of some of the annoyances in game, like small material storage slots or having to buy gathering tools.

Exactly so.  I don't buy many mount skins either because I don't feel that the cost is worth it for me.  It is fortunate that I can exchange gold for gems for when I do see one that interests me.  And that only costs me time, which I'm playing in-game anyway.  🙂

[Gadzooks.4687]

The games expansions are super cheap in comparison because its an age old marketing strategy. You cant buy the mounts if you dont have access to using them.

 

For example

 

Copy machines (ie: Xerox) used in offices, are often given to the company FREE. They do this under the requirement that the company will buy a multi year service plan (for a lot of money) as well as purchase the toner/ink replacements which cost a LOT of money. 

 

So while the copy machines themselves might have a 5,000 dollar value... giving them away free to companies will, over time, actually earn MORE money through service and toner/ink replacements.

[Kitty La Boom Boom.4065]

On 8/19/2020 at 3:25 PM, coso.9173 said:

I have 2 issues with mount skins in this game.First, there's no way to earn any by playing the game, it's not a reward for anything. Unless of course you earn gold in game and then change to gems and then but it. But it lacks the feeling of reward you'd get by getting a new skin in-game, not to mention if it would be done like the sky scale or griffon there's an actual story quest with it too, the gem store lacks that too.My second complaint is that it's way too expensive. 1200 gems for most skins is too much. 700 gems is the price of most costumes, and it should be the same for mount skins too.I'm not against some special skins being luxury items and more expensive, many games have that, but the general price for them should be much closer too 700 gems imo.

I like the idea of special quests/collections for some mount skins.  I think it would be a really creative way to integrate lore and game story content.  Example:  One of the Norn personal storylines involves them getting blackout drunk at a moot and learning that they have misplaced a Charr vehicle.  How much fun would it be to (if your character has that story they are the main, if not, then your character is assisting the main) complete a collection based on that story and have that vehicle skin for your raptor, or roller beetle?

I also thought your idea of the average skin (or mount select license) being changed to 700 instead of the current 1200 was not bad; at first. 

Coming from a background as a content creator in 3D art, I know that there is a big difference between creating clothing and creating critters.  You know that Tik Tok meme song?  "It costs that much because it takes me kitten hours"?  That definitely applies here.  So, for 400 gems, you can take a chance at getting a skin you will like,  or 400 each skin if you want them all.  Alternatively, you spend 1200 and can choose the one you want outright.  Not so unreasonable when you think about it.

 

I do think it would be cool to have side quests with mount skin rewards though.  That would be fun ❤️

[Vilin.8056]

26 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

I don't feel that the cost is worth it for me. 

Isn't that the point of this thread? 

[Gibson.4036]

3 minutes ago, Gadzooks.4687 said:

The games expansions are super cheap in comparison because its an age old marketing strategy. You cant buy the mounts if you dont have access to using them.

 

For example

 

Copy machines (ie: Xerox) used in offices, are often given to the company FREE. They do this under the requirement that the company will buy a multi year service plan (for a lot of money) as well as purchase the toner/ink replacements which cost a LOT of money. 

 

So while the copy machines themselves might have a 5,000 dollar value... giving them away free to companies will, over time, actually earn MORE money through service and toner/ink replacements.

I'll just add that you don't have an MMO if you don't have a lot of players. The people who don't put in a ton of cash still make the game what it is for the people who do. So it's not only about getting people in the door to spend more money, it's also about filling out a population to create a community for those who do spend money.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

Perhaps some comparison shopping is in order.  WoW is the bellwether for multiplayer online games.  If you haven't looked, their cash store sells mounts.  The prices?  A few go for $15 US (in GW2, 1200 gems) but most go for $25 US (shockingly, 2000 gems in GW2).  Imagine that.  Think ANet might have done some market research?  As an outsider, it looks like these are mounts, but their functionality is for the most part the same as mounts gained in game.  They might as well be skins.

 

While I can empathize with those who want mount skins and cannot afford them for whatever reason, the real question is what would ANet have to charge and for what features/services would those charges accrue to replace the income that mount skins generate now.  Be careful what you ask for.  The outcome of getting what you ask for is often worse than the prior status quo.  Just ask anyone who regularly used Arc's build and gear templates.

 

The idea that reducing the price would make up for the revenue lost from those who do buy them at their current prices doesn't hold water.  How do I know?  Back during Mountgate, then ANet CEO Mike O'Brien said so.  I think he might have had way more data to come to that conclusion than we do.

[Gibson.4036]

And that is why, though I think the price is outrageous, I’m content with shrugging my shoulders and continuing on playing. People who can toss $25 away for a glowy mount are keeping me from having to pay a sub. More power to ‘em.

[Deihnyx.6318]

The mindset to get with mount skins and premium skins in general is whether you want to support Anet or not.

To me that's really what it is. Yes it's pricey, but it's being used to keep the game alive past the expansions.

[kharmin.7683]

2 hours ago, Vilin.8056 said:

Isn't that the point of this thread? 

To a degree, perhaps, but I'm not advocating for Anet to reduce the price.  Many (most) skins I simply don't like so price point isn't so relevant for me.