Mount skins are too expensive

[Hanako.1827]

On 9/23/2021 at 2:53 PM, 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.

Thats REALLLLYYYY hard to determine. Because theres was a set price from the get go for the skins so theres no actual evidence for or against whether or not it would drive sales. I certainly believe sales would probably go up if the price drop was directed more at the less flashy skins. 

 

Also logically he can ask Kharmin for evidence because it isn't a negative. Especially given Kharmin is talking with the bravado of someone who has some analytical raw data beyond "Well look at the price now". If there was an optimal point reached I don't see how it explains the current state of some of the events of the game such as two elder dragons being killed at the end of a rushed living story which strongly hints wanting to bring a conclusion closer to GW2, so I wouldn't go as far to say its working all that efficiently. 

[Gehenna.3625]

5 hours ago, Hanako.1827 said:

Thats REALLLLYYYY hard to determine. Because theres was a set price from the get go for the skins so theres no actual evidence for or against whether or not it would drive sales. I certainly believe sales would probably go up if the price drop was directed more at the less flashy skins. 

This is what I was getting at before it descended into whatever it became. 

 

The thing is that there is a difference between sales and revenue. Of course lowering prices will increase sales, but will it be enough sales to increase revenue? This is what people don't seem to get. I've already explained this twice, but it seems that people ignore this part, so I'll give it another go.

 

So there are mounts that cost 1200 gems. If they lowered the price to 600 gems there will be more sales. However, it doesn't mean that there will be twice as many sales and that's important because it would take twice as many sales to get the same revenue. So there are people that do this for a living and every game company has at least one of these people that are cash shop specialists and they can largely predict how much increase in lower prices will gain them in sales or purchases. 

 

There are temporary sales like now the desert mount licenses are 20% off and this is also done to maximize sales at a lower price point. The fact that those sales are temporary also helps. So they have a lot of data incoming and they analyze this constantly. 

 

But the key thing I would like people to understand is that more sales does not mean more revenue. If you sell something for 20 bucks and get 100 people to buy it, you make 2000 bucks. If you lower the price to 15 bucks and 120 people buy it they make 1800 bucks. So even though you have more sales, you make less money. You'd need to have a 134 purchase at 15 bucks (2010 bucks) to make more revenue so if that's not the projection then you don't want to lower the price.

 

People argue that the price has been set and never changed, but those prices are set with a lot of data behind it already and they continue to add data. And they have mounts that cost 400, 1200, 1600 and 2000 gems. And they go on sale regularly. So they already have many different price points. 

 

It's armchair quarterbacking that people here would think they know better than the people who set the price points and do the analytics. And this is likely why kharmin is right to give as evidence the price points that exist.

 

[Dante.1508]

23 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

This is what I was getting at before it descended into whatever it became. 

 

The thing is that there is a difference between sales and revenue. Of course lowering prices will increase sales, but will it be enough sales to increase revenue? This is what people don't seem to get. I've already explained this twice, but it seems that people ignore this part, so I'll give it another go.

 

So there are mounts that cost 1200 gems. If they lowered the price to 600 gems there will be more sales. However, it doesn't mean that there will be twice as many sales and that's important because it would take twice as many sales to get the same revenue. So there are people that do this for a living and every game company has at least one of these people that are cash shop specialists and they can largely predict how much increase in lower prices will gain them in sales or purchases. 

 

There are temporary sales like now the desert mount licenses are 20% off and this is also done to maximize sales at a lower price point. The fact that those sales are temporary also helps. So they have a lot of data incoming and they analyze this constantly. 

 

But the key thing I would like people to understand is that more sales does not mean more revenue. If you sell something for 20 bucks and get 100 people to buy it, you make 2000 bucks. If you lower the price to 15 bucks and 120 people buy it they make 1800 bucks. So even though you have more sales, you make less money. You'd need to have a 134 purchase at 15 bucks (2010 bucks) to make more revenue so if that's not the projection then you don't want to lower the price.

 

People argue that the price has been set and never changed, but those prices are set with a lot of data behind it already and they continue to add data. And they have mounts that cost 400, 1200, 1600 and 2000 gems. And they go on sale regularly. So they already have many different price points. 

 

It's armchair quarterbacking that people here would think they know better than the people who set the price points and do the analytics. And this is likely why kharmin is right to give as evidence the price points that exist.

 

No there would be four time the sales or more.. when you price an item into the area for all customers not just the richest you make more sales because everyone can buy them and do.. But hey Anet can live on the breadcrumbs of the whales i guess..

Edited September 25, 2021 by Dante.1508

[Rasimir.6239]

37 minutes ago, Dante.1508 said:

No there would be four time the sales or more.. when you price an item into the area for all customers not just the richest you make more sales because everyone can buy them and do.. But hey Anet can live on the breadcrumbs of the whales i guess..

I honestly can't follow your logic here. If ANet thought they could make more money by lowering the price, then why do you think they aren't doing it?

[Gehenna.3625]

1 hour ago, Dante.1508 said:

No there would be four time the sales or more.. when you price an item into the area for all customers not just the richest you make more sales because everyone can buy them and do.. But hey Anet can live on the breadcrumbs of the whales i guess..

On which data is that based? I'm guessing this is what you want to believe and not what really is.

Edited September 25, 2021 by Gehenna.3625

[Hanako.1827]

3 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

The thing is that there is a difference between sales and revenue. Of course lowering prices will increase sales, but will it be enough sales to increase revenue? This is what people don't seem to get. I've already explained this twice, but it seems that people ignore this part, so I'll give it another go.

Oh probably I understand where you're coming from completely. I think anyone that takes one highschool class of basic economics would understand the point you're making. But there's two points to make.

 

1. How many players would GW2 have retained if practices were more fair to keep them playing and paying in the first place? Im almost certain a lot of people stopped playing when they realised these skins were not going to budge on their hefty price along with other Gemstore shenanigans. So though the point you are making is very valid and sound, there is absolutely a potential that a player base that is bigger with more incentive to buy skins would have the possibility to lead to decent enough revenue stream. Whether or not thats too late now who really knows. If you lower prices to expand sales that doesn't necessarily equate to more revenue, but if your overall sample pool for the market is now bigger then its increases those odds. 
I will be happy to admit the argument potentially against this is that certain players who only care to get a specified mount skin for that one mount and be content with it now have it easier at the potential cost of anet.

2. Im not arguing for what WILL work but I'm dismissing any argument that for sure certifies arenanets decision as a logical outcome to a conclusion. The things the company has done to the game has haemorrhaged players and made continuing ones like myself doubtful which is why I mentioned the fact that TWO elder dragons were killed of in a living world series, players aren't all that incentivized to spend money when the future of the game seems uncertain, especially given Arenanet has demonstrated that they will happily take that money to spend it on another project. If absolute trust in their chief economists was the sword to die on then technically no MMO has any reason for dying. And if arenanets showcasing of their current game with a botched Elder Dragon two for one deal and an expansion with professions that seem to be reusing animations constantly I don't particularly see a reason why those doubts can be seen as misplaced. This mixed with the point above is indicative of a very big a common market term called a depressed market.

The 400 gems for a mount is a bit disingenuous, its 400 gems for random chance of a mount skin with the high potential to get a skin for a mount you might not even want. If an extra option existed where you could pay 600 gems but the selection is locked to a few more lower effort textures I think that would be a decent addition.

 

I would LOVE to spend money in the gemstore, I personally don't plan to do that since my issue with mounts isn't the price, its the fact that they are gemstore exclusive and I like prestige items which mounts have always been seen as a staple golden child for and the gem store doesn't allow.

I don't think you're even necessarily wrong but I take issue with your response to Vox being fallacious given who he was responding to and especially since nothing he was suggesting was fallacious given its a suggestion that indicates why he would even be invigorated to spend gems on mounts. Though you and Kharmin have the same points you have them for different reasons which is why they couldn't specify what you expressed, and they have displayed not only misplacement in calling people fallacious but has themselves committed to throwing fallacious arguments in what seems like an endless pursuit of Devils advocate positions for arenanet that their post history seems to indicate, they will say nothing is truly knowable while at the same time claiming that the set price is indicative enough proof that they are wrong which is why you can easily say they argue in bad faith. Saying "because arenanet deemed it so" is not a logical position at the end of the day, you have to give a rationale to the decision which you presented but they didn't. 

Edited September 25, 2021 by Hanako.1827

[kharmin.7683]

2 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

This is what I was getting at before it descended into whatever it became. 

 

The thing is that there is a difference between sales and revenue. Of course lowering prices will increase sales, but will it be enough sales to increase revenue? This is what people don't seem to get. I've already explained this twice, but it seems that people ignore this part, so I'll give it another go.

 

So there are mounts that cost 1200 gems. If they lowered the price to 600 gems there will be more sales. However, it doesn't mean that there will be twice as many sales and that's important because it would take twice as many sales to get the same revenue. So there are people that do this for a living and every game company has at least one of these people that are cash shop specialists and they can largely predict how much increase in lower prices will gain them in sales or purchases. 

 

There are temporary sales like now the desert mount licenses are 20% off and this is also done to maximize sales at a lower price point. The fact that those sales are temporary also helps. So they have a lot of data incoming and they analyze this constantly. 

 

But the key thing I would like people to understand is that more sales does not mean more revenue. If you sell something for 20 bucks and get 100 people to buy it, you make 2000 bucks. If you lower the price to 15 bucks and 120 people buy it they make 1800 bucks. So even though you have more sales, you make less money. You'd need to have a 134 purchase at 15 bucks (2010 bucks) to make more revenue so if that's not the projection then you don't want to lower the price.

 

People argue that the price has been set and never changed, but those prices are set with a lot of data behind it already and they continue to add data. And they have mounts that cost 400, 1200, 1600 and 2000 gems. And they go on sale regularly. So they already have many different price points. 

 

It's armchair quarterbacking that people here would think they know better than the people who set the price points and do the analytics. And this is likely why kharmin is right to give as evidence the price points that exist.

 

Thank you.  To me, it seems that some simply refuse to understand this concept. This is why I've decided to stop arguing in this thread.  It's willful ignorance, and I don't mean that in a condescending way.

[Hanako.1827]

2 hours ago, Dante.1508 said:

No there would be four time the sales or more..

No one knows that for certain. 

[Gehenna.3625]

1 hour ago, Hanako.1827 said:

1. How many players would GW2 have retained if practices were more fair to keep them playing and paying in the first place? Im almost certain a lot of people stopped playing when they realised these skins were not going to budge on their hefty price along with other Gemstore shenanigans. So though the point you are making is very valid and sound, there is absolutely a potential that a player base that is bigger with more incentive to buy skins would have the possibility to lead to decent enough revenue stream. Whether or not thats too late now who really knows. If you lower prices to expand sales that doesn't necessarily equate to more revenue, but if your overall sample pool for the market is now bigger then its increases those odds. 
I will be happy to admit the argument potentially against this is that certain players who only care to get a specified mount skin for that one mount and be content with it now have it easier at the potential cost of anet.

There is the potential that lower prices garners more loyalty over time and that would potentially mean more purchases over time. So you could have a point with that. And this loyalty is not included in my point, but it's very hard to substantiate since the reasons for loyalty are hard to measure. So in that sense we'll never know.

1 hour ago, Hanako.1827 said:

2. Im not arguing for what WILL work but I'm dismissing any argument that for sure certifies arenanets decision as a logical outcome to a conclusion. The things the company has done to the game has haemorrhaged players and made continuing ones like myself doubtful which is why I mentioned the fact that TWO elder dragons were killed of in a living world series, players aren't all that incentivized to spend money when the future of the game seems uncertain, especially given Arenanet has demonstrated that they will happily take that money to spend it on another project. If absolute trust in their chief economists was the sword to die on then technically no MMO has any reason for dying. And if arenanets showcasing of their current game with a botched Elder Dragon two for one deal and an expansion with professions that seem to be reusing animations constantly I don't particularly see a reason why those doubts can be seen as misplaced. This mixed with the point above is indicative of a very big a common market term called a depressed market.

I think that players leaving has more to do with the content than the monetization though. A lot of people, myself included are a bit tired of fighting dragons. This game should've been called Dragon Wars in that sense. So some like it some don't. And I trust their economists more than random people on the forum. I'm not saying they're infallible though, nobody is. But I do take issue with all the armchair quarterbacking that goes on here.

1 hour ago, Hanako.1827 said:

The 400 gems for a mount is a bit disingenuous, its 400 gems for random chance of a mount skin with the high potential to get a skin for a mount you might not even want. If an extra option existed where you could pay 600 gems but the selection is locked to a few more lower effort textures I think that would be a decent addition.

Well it's still a price point, but I was also referring to the packs that cost 2000 gems that have 5 mount skins in it with a theme like the mad realm mounts and the exo-suit skins.

1 hour ago, Hanako.1827 said:

 

I would LOVE to spend money in the gemstore, I personally don't plan to do that since my issue with mounts isn't the price, its the fact that they are gemstore exclusive and I like prestige items which mounts have always been seen as a staple golden child for and the gem store doesn't allow.

That's fair comment.

1 hour ago, Hanako.1827 said:

I don't think you're even necessarily wrong but I take issue with your response to Vox being fallacious given who he was responding to and especially since nothing he was suggesting was fallacious given its a suggestion that indicates why he would even be invigorated to spend gems on mounts. Though you and Kharmin have the same points you have them for different reasons which is why they couldn't specify what you expressed, and they have displayed not only misplacement in calling people fallacious but has themselves committed to throwing fallacious arguments in what seems like an endless pursuit of Devils advocate positions for arenanet that their post history seems to indicate. Saying "because arenanet deemed it so" is not a logical position at the end of the day, you have to give a rationale to the decision which you presented but they didn't. 

I will assume that you mean vlaxitov and not vox. I will say that "because Anet deemed it so" is not a fair representation of what was said. It was said that the evidence was that the price points are as they are. And I commented that they (kharmin) have a point with that because Anet have a pretty good idea what they're doing and data to base it on and that's why I feel that point is valid. Economists are not infallible but to think that they are entirely incompetent, which is what armchair quarterbacking means, is something that I can't agree with without evidence or solid arguments.

 

However, I do agree that you have a point with your number 1 point. And you make a very good point with that. Sadly, that can't be measured, so we'll never know.

[Hanako.1827]

10 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

There is the potential that lower prices garners more loyalty over time and that would potentially mean more purchases over time. So you could have a point with that. And this loyalty is not included in my point, but it's very hard to substantiate since the reasons for loyalty are hard to measure. So in that sense we'll never know.

And unfortunately its likely at the point where its unlikely to happen given peoples soured opinion of the game. 

 

10 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

I think that players leaving has more to do with the content than the monetization though. A lot of people, myself included are a bit tired of fighting dragons. This game should've been called Dragon Wars in that sense. So some like it some don't. And I trust their economists more than random people on the forum. I'm not saying they're infallible though, nobody is. But I do take issue with all the armchair quarterbacking that goes on here.

I think they're heavily intertwined. I believe lot of people don't feel like doing some of the content that already exists because rewards just aren't really there, and its further a slap in the face when you see something that felt like it could have been integrated into a reward system in-game, especially when it matches its theme, is in the gemstore, you can pad out content in decent enough ways with reward incentives tied with particular altercations to existing content.

I mean I know many MMO's where I fight more dragons and saying you're tired of fighting dragons will never be a good enough response for why two creatures that belong to a pivotal group of the overall lore of Guild Wars should essentially be written off. Usually from what the trend sets, an expansion is based around a particular dragon, if they have decided to get rid of two of those opportunities then for me personally, it isn't a positive indication as to what the future holds for this game. I don't think arenanet killed Primordias and Jormag off because they're "tired of dragons" either. They are chances for expansions and I think given they want to make an overall finished package probably indicates they are trying to rush to the end of something and were willing to cut them out in order to achieve that with the time they have.

I personally take more issue with the shielding people give arenanet for conventionally stupid decisions that I believe, do not work out in the long term for growth in my eyes, and I find it very confusing that those who relentlessly side with authority which hasn't displayed itself with its best thinking hat for how it handles money, will wax how they understand the market while others don't when there's plenty of nuance for and against.

 

10 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

I will assume that you mean vlaxitov and not vox. I will say that "because Anet deemed it so" is not a fair representation of what was said. It was said that the evidence was that the price points are as they are. And I commented that they (kharmin) have a point with that because Anet have a pretty good idea what they're doing and data to base it on and that's why I feel that point is valid. Economists are not infallible but to think that they are entirely incompetent, which is what armchair quarterbacking means, is something that I can't agree with without evidence or solid arguments.

Yeah spelt it wrong mb. Oh they may have had a point. But my issue as I said was it is not a point in good faith which Vlaxitov was pointing out which was mostly indicated by the 'appeal to authority' approach Kharmin continues to exude.

Im very well aware of what armchair quarterbacking means. You do have a somewhat valid point, but so does someone on the opposition and in my personal opinion from someone who is happy to admit to outletting conjecture as much as you and kharmin I have no reason to believe the current practices have worked for the benefit.

Because from what is indicative with the outcomes seen with layoffs, cut content for a closer narrative conclusion (thats essentially what killing off two expansion potential dragons in a living story wrap up is), failed side projects that took money from Guild Wars and former staff seeming to confirm that the company is obsessed with keeping up appearances then there is plenty enough validation present to not have much faith in their economics team since I see them more as people better at salvaging loses the company creates than building up on establishes successes which instead they prefer to sour.

Edited September 25, 2021 by Hanako.1827

[Dante.1508]

On 9/25/2021 at 7:54 PM, Rasimir.6239 said:

I honestly can't follow your logic here. If ANet thought they could make more money by lowering the price, then why do you think they aren't doing it?

Big companies always go for the easy route they never like taking outside of the box chances as their shareholders are too important.

On 9/25/2021 at 8:30 PM, Gehenna.3625 said:

On which data is that based? I'm guessing this is what you want to believe and not what really is.

On millions of successful franchises across the world.

Edited September 26, 2021 by Dante.1508

[Kalocin.5982]

FFXIV store mounts are more expensive , that's with a sub attached ol

Edited September 26, 2021 by Kalocin.5982

[Hanako.1827]

6 hours ago, Kalocin.5982 said:

FFXIV store mounts are more expensive , that's with a sub attached ol

I guess the point to mention is the "store mounts" part. XIV has mounts you can earn through gameplay. All the skins for mounts in gw2 are store mounts. 

Edited September 26, 2021 by Hanako.1827

[Gehenna.3625]

Not to ignore the rest of your post but I think we've reached close enough of a consensus, but this caught my eye:

22 hours ago, Hanako.1827 said:

I mean I know many MMO's where I fight more dragons and saying you're tired of fighting dragons will never be a good enough response for why two creatures that belong to a pivotal group of the overall lore of Guild Wars should essentially be written off. Usually from what the trend sets, an expansion is based around a particular dragon, if they have decided to get rid of two of those opportunities then for me personally, it isn't a positive indication as to what the future holds for this game.

To me it was not a good sign where all we did is kill one dragon after another. Then we also killed a god in between and it's just way too much for me. For me it means lack of inspiration and how to build up a story.

Our characters are essentially too epic and it's at a stark contrast with the mundane chores we also have to perform in the game. I just got tired of the dragon killing because it's the only thing the story has to offer. So we killed off most dragons and the human gods are gone. What's next? Well, that is actually an interesting question, but first we have to deal with another Dragon in Cantha of course. 

So I find that going through dragons more quickly is a good sign because we can finally get a change to the theme instead of "Oh, guess what? Yep you guessed it...another Dragon". 

[Gehenna.3625]

14 minutes ago, Hanako.1827 said:

I guess the point to mention is the "store mounts" part. XIV has mounts you can earn through gameplay. All the skins for mounts in gw2 are store mounts. 

Whenever you say mounts I guess you mean the skins and not the actual mounts?

[Hanako.1827]

21 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

To me it was not a good sign where all we did is kill one dragon after another. Then we also killed a god in between and it's just way too much for me. For me it means lack of inspiration and how to build up a story.

Ive never heard of anybody express this point except for you to be honest and again, I don't think this is a sentiment arenanet share, but I guess I should ask do you think they did this because arenanet wants to move beyond dragons for other plot devices? 

 

We don't actually fight that many dragons in gw2 compared to the variety you'll find in FFXIV and WoW, we just fight very big ones, few and far between that I think are quite well designed. Im sorry you personally don't like them but at the end of the day the game has always decided to revolve around them,  and thematics of its very logo is a dragon.

21 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

So I find that going through dragons more quickly is a good sign because we can finally get a change to the theme instead of "Oh, guess what? Yep you guessed it...another Dragon". 

You're someone who Ive seen actually post quite intelligent responses but you're falling off the mark here to the point where Im confused if you're even speaking in good faith. This is nothing to me but a pointless personal opinion as a response to the original expression of what I believe is arenanets internal issues being showcased, at the very least they could have dedicated an expansion to both Jormag and Primordus instead of a pokemon battle that ends in a 5 second clip of two heads killing each other.

I certainly do not think arenanet thinks the same that they would kill off two dragons teased with15 years of hype in a unanimously agreed upon, terrible way, because they want to diversify their big bad roster I will happily bet my odds against yours in saying that isn't the case. 

As for a personal opinion of mine? I like the dragons, they look cool and well designed, their projections of power and influence on the world and its denizens are varied enough to me to be interesting and we kill one once every 3 years with plenty of variations of enemies inbetween it seems.

Edited September 26, 2021 by Hanako.1827

[Hanako.1827]

20 minutes ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

Whenever you say mounts I guess you mean the skins and not the actual mounts?

Yeah I even said "mount skins" in regards to gw2 because "Mounts" in games like wow and FFXIV are technically just skin because their functions are the same. 

[DarcShriek.5829]

$25.00 is the highest price there is for a mount skin.  $25.00 is something that most anyone working full time can afford.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

1 hour ago, Hanako.1827 said:

Ive never heard of anybody express this point except for you to be honest and again, I don't think this is a sentiment arenanet share, but I guess I should ask do you think they did this because arenanet wants to move beyond dragons for other plot devices? 

 

We don't actually fight that many dragons in gw2 compared to the variety you'll find in FFXIV and WoW, we just fight very big ones, few and far between that I think are quite well designed. Im sorry you personally don't like them but at the end of the day the game has always decided to revolve around them,  and thematics of its very logo is a dragon.

You're someone who Ive seen actually post quite intelligent responses but you're falling off the mark here to the point where Im confused if you're even speaking in good faith. This is nothing to me but a pointless personal opinion as a response to the original expression of what I believe is arenanets internal issues being showcased, at the very least they could have dedicated an expansion to both Jormag and Primordus instead of a pokemon battle that ends in a 5 second clip of two heads killing each other.

I certainly do not think arenanet thinks the same that they would kill off two dragons teased with15 years of hype in a unanimously agreed upon, terrible way, because they want to diversify their big bad roster I will happily bet my odds against yours in saying that isn't the case. 

As for a personal opinion of mine? I like the dragons, they look cool and well designed, their projections of power and influence on the world and its denizens are varied enough to me to be interesting and we kill one once every 3 years with plenty of variations of enemies inbetween it seems.

'Tired of Dragons' is a recurring theme for posts on the forum.  FYI. 

[Hanako.1827]

1 hour ago, Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:

'Tired of Dragons' is a recurring theme for posts on the forum.  FYI. 

That doesn't really tie well with the communities further and more obvious anger towards two of them being killed off.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Hanako.1827

[Gibson.4036]

4 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

 

Our characters are essentially too epic and it's at a stark contrast with the mundane chores we also have to perform in the game. 

It still occasionally strikes me funny that I’ve saved the world multiple times over and some character is like, “Nope, not gonna sell you anything until you feed my livestock.”

[Gibson.4036]

3 hours ago, DarcShriek.5829 said:

$25.00 is the highest price there is for a mount skin.  $25.00 is something that most anyone working full time can afford.

Kind of silly thing to say. Just because you have $25 doesn’t make everything worth $25.

I’ll pay $30 for EOD. I get most of my video games for under $10 because I’m content to wait for steam sales. I got the entire elder scrolls series in a boxed set for $25 because I was content to wait.

With a family of four on a single working artist’s income, yeah I have $25 dollars. But not to spend to make one mount look different in one game.

Im not arguing mounts should be cheaper. The are what they are so ANet can make the money required that I can play this game with my son without paying two subs each month. That’s fine by me.

But saying anyone who has a job should have $25 is meaningless relative to what mounts should cost.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Gibson.4036

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

1 hour ago, Hanako.1827 said:

That doesn't really tie well with the communities further and more obvious anger towards two of them being killed off.

Doesn't make it any less true. 

[Tiviana.2650]

On 9/25/2021 at 6:52 AM, Hanako.1827 said:

No one knows that for certain. 

I would buy more thats for sure. its simple logic you price something well and people will buy it more. But they can do w/e they want.

[DarcShriek.5829]

1 hour ago, Gibson.4036 said:

Kind of silly thing to say. Just because you have $25 doesn’t make everything worth $25.

I’ll pay $30 for EOD. I get most of my video games for under $10 because I’m content to wait for steam sales. I got the entire elder scrolls series in a boxed set for $25 because I was content to wait.

With a family of four on a single working artist’s income, yeah I have $25 dollars. But not to spend to make one mount look different in one game.

Im not arguing mounts should be cheaper. The are what they are so ANet can make the money required that I can play this game with my son without paying two subs each month. That’s fine by me.

But saying anyone who has a job should have $25 is meaningless relative to what mounts should cost.

How is this silly?  It was in response to the comment that people had to be rich to buy some of the skins.  I simply pointed out that you don't have to be rich to spend $25.00.  And no, it's not meaningless.