Mount skins are too expensive

[Dante.1508]

22 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.

When i come to skins in a virtual game it does.. People would buy more at $5 than 1 at $20.. They feel like they are getting a better deal so they buy more..

22 hours 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.

It doesn't cost $20 a pop to make them...

Edited September 22, 2021 by Dante.1508

[kharmin.7683]

3 minutes ago, Dante.1508 said:

When i come to skins in a virtual game it does.. People would buy more at $5 than 1 at $20.. They feel like they are getting a better deal so they buy more..

It doesn't cost $20 a pop to make them...

I'm sorry, but marketing history doesn't support that premise.  Again, if true, then why $5?  Why not $1?  Or $0.50?  Or $0.10?  At ten cents, ANet should sell thousands of skins and be raking in money hand over fist.

As for how much it costs to make them, no it shouldn't cost $20 otherwise Anet would make no profit.  However, they have to pay for the talent and time for someone to design and actually create the skin which, I would guess, costs Anet more than $5 each.

[Dante.1508]

21 hours 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 they are in that deep of financial troubles no price will help them.. And as we are getting a new Expac i'm feeling they are doing fine money wise.. Remember NCsoft has multiple mmos going at once.

16 hours ago, kharmin.7683 said:

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.

If its not relevant why ask what price people think they should be?

  

2 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

I'm sorry, but marketing history doesn't support that premise.  Again, if true, then why $5?  Why not $1?  Or $0.50?  Or $0.10?  At ten cents, ANet should sell thousands of skins and be raking in money hand over fist.

As for how much it costs to make them, no it shouldn't cost $20 otherwise Anet would make no profit.  However, they have to pay for the talent and time for someone to design and actually create the skin which, I would guess, costs Anet more than $5 each.

I dunno what history you follow but it very much does in the real world.. A company must make some money so your hyperbole prices make no sense $5-$7 USD is fine.

Edited September 22, 2021 by Dante.1508

[kharmin.7683]

Just now, Dante.1508 said:

 

If its not relevant why ask what price people think they should be?

It was to continue the discussion. 

[Dante.1508]

1 minute ago, kharmin.7683 said:

It was to continue the discussion. 

Weird way to continue a discussion when you aren't interested.. And as i said Above $5-$7USD would be fine..

[genjonah.1253]

21 minutes ago, Dante.1508 said:

When i come to skins in a virtual game it does.. People would buy more at $5 than 1 at $20.. They feel like they are getting a better deal so they buy more..

It doesn't cost $20 a pop to make them...

You’re right that it doesn’t cost $20 to make them. It costs far, far more, and that’s without any profit, meaning no incentive to make an, again, completely aesthetic, no QoL ‘upgrade’.

 

there isn’t just one guy twirling his mustache every time someone buys a mount, laughing as he’s now gained $20
 

That money is spread around how many developers? How many artists? How many server engineers?

 

What about making sure any of those individuals are quality? how many years of training involved in that? how many other employees at ANet to support them? To hire them?

 

 The reason it’s ‘so high’ per individual mount skin isn’t because they make $20 per. It’s because those involved make, maybe, a few pennies per

 

 

[kharmin.7683]

1 hour ago, Dante.1508 said:

Weird way to continue a discussion when you aren't interested.. And as i said Above $5-$7USD would be fine..

I'm interested in Anet's ability to make a profit to keep developing the game and keeping the servers running. 

If $5 is fine, why not $1?  No one has answered that yet.

[Burial.1958]

Microsoft should Buy ArenaNet problem solved. 😄

[Vlaxitov.9753]

36 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

I'm interested in Anet's ability to make a profit to keep developing the game and keeping the servers running. 

If $5 is fine, why not $1?  No one has answered that yet.

 

Because even though they might still make money at $1 they'd probably be more likely hit sort of a Laffer curve sweet spot in sales with a figure that's something like $5-$7.

[kharmin.7683]

10 minutes ago, Vlaxitov.9753 said:

 

Because even though they might still make money at $1 they'd probably be more likely hit sort of a Laffer curve sweet spot in sales with a figure that's something like $5-$7.

Perhaps.  Maybe that sweet spot is $20  No one here has the data to support either claim.  I was refuting the argument that lowering the price would guarantee many more sales and more profit by making what could be an extreme case ($1). 

Only Anet knows their true financial picture and they know the price point where skins would sell for enough profit over a price point that would bring in less sales.  That the price hasn't changed tells me that they know what that point should be to satisfy their margins.

Good luck with your $5-$7 suggestion.  I highly doubt that Anet will act on it.

[Dante.1508]

1 hour ago, genjonah.1253 said:

You’re right that it doesn’t cost $20 to make them. It costs far, far more, and that’s without any profit, meaning no incentive to make an, again, completely aesthetic, no QoL ‘upgrade’.

 

there isn’t just one guy twirling his mustache every time someone buys a mount, laughing as he’s now gained $20
 

That money is spread around how many developers? How many artists? How many server engineers?

 

What about making sure any of those individuals are quality? how many years of training involved in that? how many other employees at ANet to support them? To hire them?

 

 The reason it’s ‘so high’ per individual mount skin isn’t because they make $20 per. It’s because those involved make, maybe, a few pennies per

 

 

Everything is already established it really doesn't.

  

59 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

I'm interested in Anet's ability to make a profit to keep developing the game and keeping the servers running. 

If $5 is fine, why not $1?  No one has answered that yet.

Because $1 is just dumb.. Hyperbole.

Edited September 22, 2021 by Dante.1508

[kharmin.7683]

4 minutes ago, Dante.1508 said:

Because $1 is just dumb.. Hyperbole.

How can it be hyperbole?  The argument is that the skins are too expensive and if the price were lowered then many more would be purchased.  The suggestion was $5, but why not $1 if the argument were to hold true? 

I believe that $5 is just dumb.  The company has to make money.  They know at what price to sell their product that will encourage enough sales to maximize profit without pricing it too high to suppress interest. 

[genjonah.1253]

9 minutes ago, Dante.1508 said:

Everything is already established it really doesn't.

  

Because $1 is just dumb.. Hyperbole.

It really does still cost that much. Even if they now fired every artist and programmer involved, never to give them money again, they still have to pay for the servers for upkeep. They still have to pay for licenses. They have to pay for the heating of the buildings they work in. They still had to pay the artists in the first place, who had to pay for their training. And they have to do this without the income of a subscription based game. 
 

though I’ve wasted enough time trying to correct the failures of public schooling to teach the basics of economics here

 

for the final record- ANet, I beg of you not to try and cater to those who don’t think your thousands of hours of work and effort are worth their money

Edited September 22, 2021 by genjonah.1253

[Vlaxitov.9753]

35 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Perhaps.  Maybe that sweet spot is $20  No one here has the data to support either claim.  I was refuting the argument that lowering the price would guarantee many more sales and more profit by making what could be an extreme case ($1). 

Only Anet knows their true financial picture and they know the price point where skins would sell for enough profit over a price point that would bring in less sales.  That the price hasn't changed tells me that they know what that point should be to satisfy their margins.

Good luck with your $5-$7 suggestion.  I highly doubt that Anet will act on it.

You haven't really refuted anything, you've only argued that "there is no smallest number" under an assumption that Anet actually knows what the optimal price point is. This is why I chose my words wisely by saying "more likely" rather than making an assertion that I know for sure. So yeah, maybe they'd make the absolute most money by charging only 1$, but I'd be willing to bet that something like $5-$7 would more optimal in terms of overall revenue based on the pricing of everything else in game.

You asked why not $1 instead of $5, I think I gave you the correct answer.

Edited September 22, 2021 by Vlaxitov.9753

[kharmin.7683]

30 minutes ago, Vlaxitov.9753 said:

You haven't really refuted anything, you've only argued that "there is no smallest number" under an assumption that Anet actually knows what the optimal price point is. This is why I chose my words wisely by saying "more likely" rather than making an assertion that I know for sure. So yeah, maybe they'd make the absolute most money by charging only 1$, but I'd be willing to bet that something like $5-$7 would more optimal in terms of overall revenue based on the pricing of everything else in game.

You asked why not $1 instead of $5, I think I gave you the correct answer.

Don't you think that Anet would price these at $5-$7 if it would make more profit for them?  Honestly.

[Itsmez.8095]

On 8/19/2020 at 10:25 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.

"there's no way to earn any by playing the game, it's not a reward for anything." I dont understand why would you even write this and then prove yourself wrong in the next sentence. It is a reward for the time you spent grinding the gold.

If the prices would be too expensive, people would not buy them and therefore they would have to lower the prices. So obviously they are not too expensive because people buy them.

700 gems would be way too cheap for the skins. Maybe couple of the ugly skins could get price dropped closer to it but for the most of the skins no.

Good reminder: If you cannot afford it, it doesnt mean its too expensive. You just cant afford it.

Edited September 22, 2021 by Itsmez.8095

[Vlaxitov.9753]

1 hour ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Don't you think that Anet would price these at $5-$7 if it would make more profit for them?  Honestly.

Why not charge $15-$20 for outfits then?
Surely an adequate amount of time and effort goes into some outfits comparatively.
This game might have enough whales, maybe they should charge $100 for mount skins.
Maybe they should sell skins in one time limited runs to achieve the TY beanie baby effect.
My point is neither of us know if they actually know what the optimal price point is.
You're just assuming that they know and arguing that "there is no smallest number" based on that assumption.
Now I know you'll never concede that I gave you a reasonable answer to your question so we'll just have to leave it at that.

 

Edited September 22, 2021 by Vlaxitov.9753

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

4 hours ago, Vlaxitov.9753 said:

 

Because even though they might still make money at $1 they'd probably be more likely hit sort of a Laffer curve sweet spot in sales with a figure that's something like $5-$7.

Except the founder of the studio explicitly stated that ~$5 was not profitable due to the Gold-to-Gem exchange.  I'm guessing he had access to the data to be able to make that statement. 

[Random Wax Orc.7695]

Cosmetics are an optional expense that help support the game.  Many mount skins premiere as black lion chests drops as well.  Anyway, complaining about individual cosmetic pricing doesn't seem constructive... how about request Anet offer a Mount Skin Season Pass, bought from the cash shop (like xpacs) instead of the gemstore?

[Doggie.3184]

It's okay if they change the models but not simple retextures~ I'm never buying those.

I'm also still using default Skyscale till they add a leviathan version with water vortex breath. 🙂

Edited September 22, 2021 by Doggie.3184

[DarcShriek.5829]

Wait until you see the price of skiff skins.  They will have a price structure similar to mount skins.

[kharmin.7683]

2 hours ago, Vlaxitov.9753 said:

My point is neither of us know if they actually know what the optimal price point is.
You're just assuming that they know and arguing that "there is no smallest number" based on that assumption.
.

 

There is no assuming that they know their optimal price point.  It is evidenced in the actual pricing of items that exists today. 

[Doggie.3184]

15 minutes ago, DarcShriek.5829 said:

Wait until you see the price of skiff skins.  They will have a price structure similar to mount skins.

True, true. What makes me sad is how much of their design time it'll take up.

Like, I just want new armor designs but all their time feels spent on mounts and gliders as there're so many tursday updates that are only one of those things. We then very occasional get shoulders/gloves/boots/outfits. It's so rare that we get chest/leg armor. The reaver chest was a first in 300 years~ need more buttcapeless releases.

Now we'll get to wake up to an exciting update of; oh it's just another boat and nothing else. 

[Vlaxitov.9753]

5 hours ago, Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:

Except the founder of the studio explicitly stated that ~$5 was not profitable due to the Gold-to-Gem exchange.  I'm guessing he had access to the data to be able to make that statement. 

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

 

 

4 hours ago, kharmin.7683 said:

There is no assuming that they know their optimal price point.  It is evidenced in the actual pricing of items that exists today. 

"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

 

Edited September 22, 2021 by Vlaxitov.9753

[Dante.1508]

10 hours ago, genjonah.1253 said:

It really does still cost that much. Even if they now fired every artist and programmer involved, never to give them money again, they still have to pay for the servers for upkeep. They still have to pay for licenses. They have to pay for the heating of the buildings they work in. They still had to pay the artists in the first place, who had to pay for their training. And they have to do this without the income of a subscription based game. 
 

though I’ve wasted enough time trying to correct the failures of public schooling to teach the basics of economics here

 

for the final record- ANet, I beg of you not to try and cater to those who don’t think your thousands of hours of work and effort are worth their money

Servers are very cheap on the business scale of things and the condescending behavior wont win your argument for you.