Mount skins are too expensive

[coso.9173]

400 for a skin isn't really true , since you don't get to choose. At least there's no duplicates though.

[otto.5684]

And the funny things is most of the expensive ones are ugly. I bought the Halloween and Asura (not sure under what name) for 1600 for the entire set. And by gold (covered to gems). Most of the 2k per one skin look terrible. Surely are not worth it.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

@"Jagblade.4627" said:I agree that the mount skins are little too costly as it stands, but at least we're not Aion or completely under NCSoft anymore. They've charged up to $50 for a single mount at times and some aren't even as good as what you can acquire in game (if RNG is on your side.) Hell, they still charge roughly $10-20 for a TEMPORARY mount.

Could you elaborate on the statement, "not...completely under NCSoft anymore."?Because, as far as I know, ArenaNet has been and still is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NCSoft.

[Jagblade.4627]

@Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:

@"Jagblade.4627" said:I agree that the mount skins are little too costly as it stands, but at least we're not Aion or completely under NCSoft anymore. They've charged up to $50 for a single mount at times and some aren't even as good as what you can acquire in game (if RNG is on your side.) Hell, they still charge roughly $10-20 for a TEMPORARY mount.

Could you elaborate on the statement, "not...completely under NCSoft anymore."?Because, as far as I know, ArenaNet has been and still is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NCSoft.

In terms of GW2, I thought I had read a few years back that Arenanet had acquired the rights to self publish GW2 back from NCSoft, the article I had read at the time seemed to imply that even though Anet is still technically owned by NCSoft this somehow gave them some greater degree of creative (or marketing) freedom with the product. I may be wrong though.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

You are correct that for a couple of years, only, ArenaNet took over publishing; that, however, did not change its status as a wholly-owned subsidiary.Also, it is true that Mike O'Brien stated several times that, throughout their association, NCSoft had a light touch on the reins.Up until that fateful February. Mike O'Brien never stated otherwise, but I'd guess he changed his mind, then.

[kenny.7236]

@kharmin.7683 said:1600 gems is $20USD That's less than going to a movie. Sorry if you can't afford it, but the cost is quite reasonable especially for a F2P game.

USD 20 = different spending power in different countries

[Friday.7864]

I agree they're a bit expensive but they're also completely optional and attainable through gold conversion so it's a non issue for me.

[casualkenny.9817]

If Anet wanted to gouge u, they would do what other games do:

1) duplicates possible2) char-bound3) rare uncommon common

That's why I am willing to buy things from Anet with cash. And not from the others.

[Obfuscate.6430]

In a thread I made on a mount skin related subject someone made this recommendation:1 select license : 1200 gems2 select licenses : 2250 gems (-6.25%)3 select licenses : 3200 gems (-11.1%)I like the idea that they should make a deal like this for mount select licenses.You have a chance to get some exclusive mounts from Black Lion Chests.You can get a random skin for 400 gems , which means for $10 USD you can get 2 random skins.I do think it would be neat if they added 1 earnable skin for each mount through some kind of quest and story, but I also think their skin pricing is ok.

[Dreams.3128]

Blame the people that cried about the one hundred dollar pack of ALL of the original mount skins. After that fiasco Anet put up their first premium mount and asked the people whether they wanted more of those or the random rng skins that don't repeat for like 200-300 gems. People asked for the more expensive option. Blame them, because NOW even the random rng ones are more expensive just because people couldn't handle the fact they couldn't get their precious skins right away, right off the bat.

[Danikat.8537]

@"Lilyanna.9361" said:Blame the people that cried about the one hundred dollar pack of ALL of the original mount skins. After that fiasco Anet put up their first premium mount and asked the people whether they wanted more of those or the random rng skins that don't repeat for like 200-300 gems. People asked for the more expensive option. Blame them, because NOW even the random rng ones are more expensive just because people couldn't handle the fact they couldn't get their precious skins right away, right off the bat.

I was one of those people who complained when the original adoption licence was released and I still prefer the system we have now to purely RNG licences.

As far as I remember no one was complaining specifically about the pack of all 30 skins. For me that was the only acceptable option in that mess. It's very expensive but at least you know exactly what you're getting for your money. The problem is if you wanted anything less than all 30 of those skins your options were to waste money buying ones you did not want by getting the bundle or waste money gambling on individual licences hoping you'd get the skins you wanted before all the rest. A waste of money or a waste of money is not a good choice.

My preferred system would be for them to sell all the mount skins individually, priced as they think is appropriate, and have them all available all the time so players can choose the ones they like best, decide if the price is reasonable and then get the ones they're happy to pay for. The system we have now is pretty convoluted but near enough to that approach to keep me happy. If I want a mount skin I know exactly what it will cost to get it and by paying that (the select licence price) I know I'm guaranteed to get it, not some random other skin I never wanted. If I think it's too expensive I can use gold for all/some of the price, wait for it to go on sale, use gold and wait for it to go on sale, or decide I don't want it enough to pay that and find/wait for another skin instead.

(Also the original mount adoption licences were never 200-300 gems. Here's the Wiki page archived on the day they were released, listing the price as 400 gems for one licence or 3,400 for 10: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/index.php?title=Mount_Adoption_License&oldid=1570606 Even buying the 30-pack for 9,600 gems put the price at 320 gems each. You can get the newer skins for the same price by buying the equivalent bundle of 15 random licences, so if you're willing to buy all the ones in a set it's as cheap as it's ever been.)

[Solanum.6983]

I'd agree if Gw2 had a subscription but it doesn't.It's a free to play Game that offers Free episodes if you're playing when they release while also having pretty cheap expansions. On top of all this the Paid currency (Gems) can also be bought with in game currency.It might seem like a lot but in my opinion the gem store prices are fine.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

Here’s something that Mike O’Brien said on a reddit post about gemstore prices and generating sufficient revenue to keep the game going.

Mike O'Brien's Response to the 2,000 Gem Store Mount Skin Prices....... Mount skins are style items, and style items have some unique challenges. They’re subject to individual taste, so except for the very flashiest items, individual style items will have limited sales. Also, GW2 isn’t setup to support an enjoyable experience of browsing through a large catalog of style items, so players tend not to do that. 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.

GW2 is a content-rich online world with no monthly fee, so it’s a great overall value, with microtransactions doing the heavy lifting of funding continued development of the game. It shouldn’t also be our goal to have the lowest-priced microtransactions. In that case, the only logical outcome would be that we could afford to make less content than other developers, and I think that’s not what any of us are looking for. ....

[Eloc Freidon.5692]

I honestly wouldn't have bought a single one at these prices if it wasn't for default mounts still getting stuck in the ground in heavy loading maps.

[Evil.1580]

@kharmin.7683 said:1600 gems is $20USD That's less than going to a movie. Sorry if you can't afford it, but the cost is quite reasonable especially for a F2P game.

The expansion is 29$ (and you get 1st expansion for free)enough said

Now the question is why do you think 2 expansions are worth it almost the same as 1 skin? Does the skin require more development? Gues so...

[Einlanzer.1627]

The skins are overpriced, and anyone who says otherwise simply isn't thinking all the way through it.

Yes, other MMOs occasionally charge $25 for skins that are intended to be exclusive. They do not charge $25 for skins they're releasing at a rapid rate with no comparable rewards in-game as that is clearly excessive by any sound reasoning.

Anet made a mistake when they first introduced this IMO and hurt their own revenue streams. Yes, GW2 is ftp, but overloading the gem store has the opposite of the desired effect. The buy rate for this would almost certainly be far higher if a.) some were obtainable in-game, and b.) most were introduced at 1200 or fewer gems, with only the occasional super-deluxe one being 1500 or more.

[kharmin.7683]

@"bOTEB.1573" said:

@kharmin.7683 said:1600 gems is $20USD That's less than going to a movie. Sorry if you can't afford it, but the cost is quite reasonable especially for a F2P game.

The expansion is 29$ (and you get 1st expansion for free)enough said

Now the question is why do you think 2 expansions are worth it almost the same as 1 skin? Does the skin require more development? Gues so...

So what is your suggested price point?

[Frostfang.5109]

I gladly support A-net if they make a good looking mount skin!

[Algreg.3629]

@Einlanzer.1627 said:The skins are overpriced, and anyone who says otherwise simply isn't thinking all the way through it.

Yes, other MMOs occasionally charge $25 for skins that are intended to be exclusive. They do not charge $25 for skins they're releasing at a rapid rate with no comparable rewards in-game as that is clearly excessive by any sound reasoning.

Anet made a mistake when they first introduced this IMO and hurt their own revenue streams. Yes, GW2 is ftp, but overloading the gem store has the opposite of the desired effect. The buy rate for this would almost certainly be far higher if a.) some were obtainable in-game, and b.) most were introduced at 1200 or fewer gems, with only the occasional super-deluxe one being 1500 or more.

I am not sure about this. I do not know how the market has shifted, but last time I read up on those things a very low percentage of players (low single digits even) were responsible for more than a third of microtransactions revenue. There will very probably a more than negligible portion of players buying each and every expensive mount skin, or least enough of them to justify them being pumped into the market. I do not know too much about the GW2 details, but I know at least one MMORPG that does feature less than 300 players per server in prime time that solely survives on feeding a handful of whales who put ridiculous amounts of money into the game every month. To clarify: I do not criticize this or whales or whatever, just trying to explain these things to myself.

[YellowJacket.7249]

@kharmin.7683 said:1600 gems is $20USD That's less than going to a movie. Sorry if you can't afford it, but the cost is quite reasonable especially for a F2P game.

Most of the mount skins (by vast majority) are quintessentially just retextured models with nothing new or interesting. I think I'd be upset if I went to a pizzeria for a $20 pizza labeled as 'gourmet' only to see it come out looking like something bought from the wal-mart freezer section.

[Vision.7265]

The skins that aren't worth buying are the ones that look too much like the base models in shape. I prefer and like supporting Anet with the ones that completely re-imagine the mount like the shrine guardian fox skin for jackal or the synergistics skin for beetle or Shimmerwing for Skyscale or any other that changes from the base skin.

I'm still waiting for pure doggo breeds as skins for jackal without the oozing sand or liquids.

[kharmin.7683]

@YellowJacket.7249 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:1600 gems is $20USD That's less than going to a movie. Sorry if you can't afford it, but the cost is quite reasonable especially for a F2P game.

Most of the mount skins (by vast majority) are quintessentially just retextured models with nothing new or interesting. I think I'd be upset if I went to a pizzeria for a $20 pizza labeled as 'gourmet' only to see it come out looking like something bought from the wal-mart freezer section.

That is an entirely subjective opinion.

[Sigela.6352]

I have talked several times with members of my guild about some of the price points.Our opinion has been that if the price point on many of these luxury items were lowered, the profits could still be made on quantity. Profits could very easily be larger.Selling 20 of a skin at 1200 gems is not as profitable as selling 80 of them at 400 gems, just as a simple illustration.

[Danikat.8537]

@XYLO.7031 said:The skins that aren't worth buying are the ones that look too much like the base models in shape. I prefer and like supporting Anet with the ones that completely re-imagine the mount like the shrine guardian fox skin for jackal or the synergistics skin for beetle or Shimmerwing for Skyscale or any other that changes from the base skin.

I'm still waiting for pure doggo breeds as skins for jackal without the oozing sand or liquids.

I think it depends on what you're looking for. I have themes for most of my characters, or at least an idea of what suits them and quite a few are fairly 'understated' so mounts which instantly stand out or are too flashy don't look right on them. I like to have 1 skin for each mount which is identical to the base mount but with 4 dye channels and maybe a different pattern. I also like some of the ones with more subtle changes like the shiverpeaks set with armour or the Axejaw skyscale which is just slightly chunkier.

Admittedly I wouldn't want more than one which is exactly like the base mounts, because I can generally dye them to suit whatever theme I'm using them for, and the more subtle changes can be a harder sell too because it needs to be different from the ones I've already got in a way which makes it ideal for one of my characters. But the same is kind of true for the more dramatically different ones too. For example I like the Lithsol raptor (the rock one), I think it's a cool idea and well executed, but if I bought it I'd basically just use it to replace the branded raptor my elementalist uses dyed to look like an earth elemental. So it's not worth getting for me even though it's an original design.

[Vision.7265]

I bought the Pegasus with no regrets. I don't have any blc skins because I don't like gambling. I don't know if any are what I'm looking for.