Mount skins are too expensive

[kharmin.7683]

2 hours ago, Vlaxitov.9753 said:

 

 

"The price of mount skins is evidence that Anet knows the optimal price point of mount skins."

"Mount skins need to be much more expensive than the other cosmetics they offer."

Pick one

 

You assume that all cosmetics are equal in the resources and developer time/effort required to make them.  That is a fallacy.

[Vlaxitov.9753]

Just now, kharmin.7683 said:

You assume that all cosmetics are equal in the resources and developer time/effort required to make them.  That is a fallacy.

No, I never made that assumption, which is exactly why I said that "some cosmetics" instead of all cosmetics in a previous post.
The same argument can also be made for mount skins, that some require more time and effort.
Again, pick one.

[kharmin.7683]

Just now, Vlaxitov.9753 said:

No, I never made that assumption, which is exactly why I said that "some cosmetics" instead of all cosmetics in a previous post.
The same argument can also be made for mount skins, that some require more time and effort.
Again, pick one.

Your current argument makes no sense. 

[Vlaxitov.9753]

4 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Your current argument makes no sense. 

How doesn't it make sense, come on man, if you're going to argue to this extent at least do it in good faith. Some cosmetics require less/more effort than others, would apply to all cosmetics, not just a difference between mount skins and everything else. I never said the same time/effort was put into all cosmetics, that's a straw man you've built.

I don't have a "current argument."
My position hasn't changed since my first two posts explaining it.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Vlaxitov.9753

[kharmin.7683]

2 minutes ago, Vlaxitov.9753 said:

How doesn't it make sense, come on man, if you're going to argue to this extent at least do it in good faith. Some cosmetics require less/more effort than others, would apply to all cosmetics, not just a difference between mount skins and everything else. I never said the same time/effort was put into all cosmetics, that's a straw man you've built.

So a cosmetic item that in all probability requires less resources than a mount skin should reduce the price of the mount skin to match it because some people on the forum believe that mount skins should only cost $5 ?   And we all know better than Anet? 

[Vlaxitov.9753]

Just now, kharmin.7683 said:

So a cosmetic item that in all probability requires less resources than a mount skin should reduce the price of the mount skin to match it because some people on the forum believe that mount skins should only cost $5 ?   And we all know better than Anet? 

Saying "we know better than Anet" is just another passive aggressive way of putting words in my mouth and building another straw man. I specifically said we don't know. How would you actually know that outfit A required less time/effort than mount skin B?

[kharmin.7683]

Just now, Vlaxitov.9753 said:

Saying "we know better than Anet" is just another passive aggressive way of putting words in my mouth and building another straw man. I specifically said we don't know. How would you actually know that outfit A required less time/effort than mount skin B?

So if "we don't know" what is your supporting evidence that mount skins should cost less?

[Vlaxitov.9753]

Just now, kharmin.7683 said:

So if "we don't know" what is your supporting evidence that mount skins should cost less?

What is your supporting evidence that they shouldn't?

Again, this all goes back to your gotcha "question," which was why not $1.

[kharmin.7683]

Just now, Vlaxitov.9753 said:

What is your supporting evidence that they shouldn't?

Again, this all goes back to your gotcha "question," which was why not $1.

My evidence is the current price.

[Vlaxitov.9753]

Just now, kharmin.7683 said:

My evidence is the current price.

So you're evidence is an assumption, and you think "there is no smallest number" is a gotcha argument based on that assumption.
OK.

[Vlaxitov.9753]

In addition, if were going to argue time/effort as a consideration for the price of mount skins vs wardrobe skins then we would actually be getting way too good of a deal on many if not all wardrobe skins. Because they have to design and redesign wardrobe skins to accommodate multiple models to put them in the game instead of just one model.

[Rasimir.6239]

7 hours ago, Vlaxitov.9753 said:

You have a source for that explicit statement and why doesn't it equally apply to the rest of the gem store offerings?

The source is a post from Mike O'Brien on reddit:

Quote

What our data shows is that higher-priced flashy individual items can work, and lower-average-price-per-item bundles can work, but lower-priced individual items generally don’t generate meaningful revenue to support the game. And the whole point of these items is to support the game.

(full post here).

 

That post is made explicitely to repsond the the question of 2k gem mount skins, but also goes into the general idea of gemstore offerings and pricing. It does not however explain in detail how the price point of each item or item type on the gemstore is chosen. If you doubt that the prices for outfits or whatever are correctly, your best bet is to take it up with ANet directly, since it looks like they do in fact put some though into their pricing 😉 .

[Rasimir.6239]

(deleted)

Edited September 23, 2021 by Rasimir.6239
double post

[Vlaxitov.9753]

3 hours ago, Rasimir.6239 said:

The source is a post from Mike O'Brien on reddit:

(full post here).

 

That post is made explicitely to repsond the the question of 2k gem mount skins, but also goes into the general idea of gemstore offerings and pricing. It does not however explain in detail how the price point of each item or item type on the gemstore is chosen. If you doubt that the prices for outfits or whatever are correctly, your best bet is to take it up with ANet directly, since it looks like they do in fact put some though into their pricing 😉 .

He also say this in the same post. "We might say, “I wouldn’t buy that!”, but if enough people buy it that it supports ongoing Live development, we’re still happy." Which is another way of saying as long as there are enough whales to buy it they don't need to know the optimal price point.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Vlaxitov.9753

[ProtoGunner.4953]

They already answered this question a couple of years ago. Their answer: people who won't spend 20€, won't even spend 5€. People who are willing to pay for fluff - although they think it's too expensive - will buy it anyway. I know it, I spent thousands of € for fluff in this game in the past 9 years. I have the money and I don't care too much about it.

[Rasimir.6239]

45 minutes ago, Vlaxitov.9753 said:

He also say this in the same post. "We might say, “I wouldn’t buy that!”, but if enough people buy it that it supports ongoing Live development, we’re still happy." Which is another way of saying as long as there are enough whales to buy it they don't need to know the optimal price point.

Your point being?

 

There is no way anyone can know the "optimal" price point, since there is no way to collect all data necessary to calculate it. Any pricing for anything in this world relies on finding a spot the seller is comfortable with, since there is no way to know how many people will actually buy at that price point compared to a different one.

 

Are you saying to expect ANet to change the price because "people on the internet say so"? Why should ANet take that risk if they have found a price point they are comfortable with?

[Gehenna.3625]

9 hours ago, Vlaxitov.9753 said:

So you're evidence is an assumption, and you think "there is no smallest number" is a gotcha argument based on that assumption.
OK.

Still waiting for your evidence that they should though. You may not like Kharmin's answer but at least they gave an answer. 

 

It's not an unfair assumption though because there are people that are experts calculating the best price point. Your assumption is that if they lowered the price they will make more money. Except what is your guarantee that if they lowered the price of a mount from 1200 gems to 600 gems that their sales of said mount will more than double? Because that's what it would take to make more money and you have no idea if that's going to be the case. So I find that assumption much more unlikely even to the point of being implausible.

1 hour ago, Vlaxitov.9753 said:

He also say this in the same post. "We might say, “I wouldn’t buy that!”, but if enough people buy it that it supports ongoing Live development, we’re still happy." Which is another way of saying as long as there are enough whales to buy it they don't need to know the optimal price point.

This explains why a certain price point is best for them. If a company would think that lowering the price would create more than enough sales to compensate, they would do it. Businesses are about making money after all.

[Vlaxitov.9753]

42 minutes ago, Rasimir.6239 said:

Your point being?

 

There is no way anyone can know the "optimal" price point, since there is no way to collect all data necessary to calculate it. Any pricing for anything in this world relies on finding a spot the seller is comfortable with, since there is no way to know how many people will actually buy at that price point compared to a different one.

 

Are you saying to expect ANet to change the price because "people on the internet say so"? Why should ANet take that risk if they have found a price point they are comfortable with?

 

24 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

Still waiting for your evidence that they should though. You may not like Kharmin's answer but at least they gave an answer. 

 

It's not an unfair assumption though because there are people that are experts calculating the best price point. Your assumption is that if they lowered the price they will make more money. Except what is your guarantee that if they lowered the price of a mount from 1200 gems to 600 gems that their sales of said mount will more than double? Because that's what it would take to make more money and you have no idea if that's going to be the case. So I find that assumption much more unlikely even to the point of being implausible.

This explains why a certain price point is best for them. If a company would think that lowering the price would create more than enough sales to compensate, they would do it. Businesses are about making money after all.

You guys are trying to argue with me outside of the original context of this exchange, which was a question of "why not ask for mount skins to cost 1$ instead of $5-$7." Again, my answer to that is sound and reasonable, which is $5-$7 is more likely to achieve an optimal price point for overall revenue than $1. I'm done with getting lost in the weeds with bad faith arguments that don't even pertain to the topic being discussed. I think that over time the mount skin prices will eventually drop anyway, which there is evidence of when you look at the gem store today.

[Gibson.4036]

1 hour ago, Vlaxitov.9753 said:

I think that over time the mount skin prices will eventually drop anyway, which there is evidence of when you look at the gem store today.

That is the general trend of these things.

Over time, there will be new shinies, and ANet will have no reason to discount the old ones that have been bought by almost everyone who was likely to buy them at that price.

It's just like how things get easier to aquire as time goes by.

There's little cost in bringing back old things at discount. It's further return on investment that has already been made.

[Gehenna.3625]

1 hour ago, Vlaxitov.9753 said:

 

You guys are trying to argue with me outside of the original context of this exchange, which was a question of "why not ask for mount skins to cost 1$ instead of $5-$7." Again, my answer to that is sound and reasonable, which is $5-$7 is more likely to achieve an optimal price point for overall revenue than $1. I'm done with getting lost in the weeds with bad faith arguments that don't even pertain to the topic being discussed. I think that over time the mount skin prices will eventually drop anyway, which there is evidence of when you look at the gem store today.

So you're still not going to answer that question, even when you require others to answer that same question. So that means you either don't have an answer or don't want to give an answer. You shouldn't have asked kharmin to come up with evidence if you're not prepared to give evidence of the opposite yourself. You can't have double standards if you want to be taken seriously.

 

Besides, you call it bad faith but that has nothing to do with it. I really wish that people wouldn't throw terms like bad faith arguments and strawman arguments around inappropriately and that includes you. You have no understanding of the term if you refer to my comments as bad faith arguments. 

 

As it stands, my view is that they have already reached a price point where they feel they get the maximum out of it. There are differently priced mounts anyway and that's to appeal to different groups of players. I doubt that mount skins will drop in price but there still will be mounts that have different price points as there are now. There is a range from 400-2000 gems after all. And there will be regular discounts as is the case now.

[Vlaxitov.9753]

1 hour ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

So you're still not going to answer that question, even when you require others to answer that same question. So that means you either don't have an answer or don't want to give an answer. You shouldn't have asked kharmin to come up with evidence if you're not prepared to give evidence of the opposite yourself. You can't have double standards if you want to be taken seriously.

I don't have to have an answer because I'm not the one who made an argument out of something I don't know. Kharmin was the one who made the "no smallest number" reductio ad absurdum argument out of something they don't know. My entire point was that argument doesn't work unless we know, which we don't. You can't jump into a back and forth between two people, guns blazing ready to argue, and lack the reading comprehension to understand the context of the exchange if you want to be taken seriously. Its all so tiresome..

[Gehenna.3625]

4 hours ago, Vlaxitov.9753 said:

I don't have to have an answer because I'm not the one who made an argument out of something I don't know. Kharmin was the one who made the "no smallest number" reductio ad absurdum argument out of something they don't know. My entire point was that argument doesn't work unless we know, which we don't. You can't jump into a back and forth between two people, guns blazing ready to argue, and lack the reading comprehension to understand the context of the exchange if you want to be taken seriously. Its all so tiresome..

Of course I can. It's a game forum. Discussions on a game forum should always be taken with a large pinch of salt, for fear of taking ourselves too serious.

[Dante.1508]

On 9/23/2021 at 11:46 AM, kharmin.7683 said:

Your current argument makes no sense. 

A lot of mount skins are just recolors.

23 hours ago, Rasimir.6239 said:

The source is a post from Mike O'Brien on reddit:

(full post here).

 

That post is made explicitely to repsond the the question of 2k gem mount skins, but also goes into the general idea of gemstore offerings and pricing. It does not however explain in detail how the price point of each item or item type on the gemstore is chosen. If you doubt that the prices for outfits or whatever are correctly, your best bet is to take it up with ANet directly, since it looks like they do in fact put some though into their pricing 😉 .

I don't believe him. Just his way of saying this is why we overprice everything.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Dante.1508

[Hanako.1827]

On 9/23/2021 at 2:44 AM, Vlaxitov.9753 said:

No, I never made that assumption, which is exactly why I said that "some cosmetics" instead of all cosmetics in a previous post.

If theres something I learned about Kharmin and their post history. They are very good at conjuring up your assumptions for you.

[Hanako.1827]

On 9/23/2021 at 2:59 AM, kharmin.7683 said:

My evidence is the current price.

"You see guys, the very issue you're talking about is proof within itself that its the best strategy because, it would have been implemented another way by the exact people you are criticizing if this was not the case, this is marketing 101 guys"

Why do you use the word fallacy when critiquing other people when you tick every logical fallacy box to their descriptive T? The one you're doing here is 'appeal-to-authority'.

Edited September 25, 2021 by Hanako.1827