What Defines a SKIN? (How to Spot the Items Worth Buying)

[sixburn.5807]

First of all, I have the utmost respect for all artists, on physical and digital media, especially to the artists that designed this game. This is my feedback on creativity partially bias towards the player POV since I am one of them.

 

**Familiar Experience**

Upon the opening of Black Lion Stables, the Mount Adoption Licenses received negative feedbacks. Many are concern about the RNG, duplicates and ultimately the pricey equivalent of the "new" mount skins. I may also have the same feeling but I have a different concern. GW2 PoF is a good game and great value, cheap as per content/experience compared to the current gen games. As a long time PC gaming purist, I am one of those players who dove deep in the lore, became passionate about the gaming experience, follow the franchise and support the hype.


 

In rare cases boycotted some games/products due to repetitive use of gameplay, story, skin, mechanic, and the re-releases that similar product as sequel yearly with familiar experience milking the brand every time. One of which is the Assassins Creed series, which I used to love and I pre-purchased several limited/collectors editions, now I stopped supporting that brand. Why compare a totally different game? No, I am not saying ArenaNet is going that path, but there's familiarity, that's all. There are so many of us Gamers and fans share the same sentiment, we base most of our reactions on our previous experience, some of us are vigilant and can easily recognize rehashed creativity diminishing the experience of the game. Don't get me started on Sports and FPS games.

 

**Buying the worthy "NEW SKIN**

So what is a skin? Spending my hard earned gold or real money in-game is a big deal, but how do I spot a skin worth buying? I am less concerned about weapons or outfits, and the most beautiful ones are already in-game, so I will only include some Mount skins and Gliders at this point. I will try to make this short.

 


 

Glider skins are the best example at this time since mounts are still new. For me, I would consider a new skin upon comparing it to the default, visually and the experience has to be different, coupled with unique animations and design. From the gallery, The Heart of Thorns exclusive glider is marked as X because its just the default skin with a different color with added effects. The Black Wings is a Question mark because there are so many gliders like it with different colors and slightly changed form, totally the same thing. Compare that to the rest with the check mark that are totally unique skin worth classifying as NEW. IMHO. I think the black wings, bat wings and all wings skin are all the same, I wish they could part of a package and be given as free variants of that same form or let buyer decide to add more gems to get that particular variant and so on. White wings and black wings skins as two items with color as the only difference, why not just make it dyeable?

 


 

This gallery is disappointing to see, this set of Raptor skins are just recolored variants of the default, the one marked with "?" has just some added effects and made dyeable.

 


 

The same with the bunnies, this set of Springer mount skins are recolored versions of the default with varied patterns and made dyeable. The ones marked with "?" have a different head feature but not unique in its entirety.

 


Although I love the trail effects of the new Skimmer, it is not much different to the default. I know skins are literally skins but in comparison to glider skins, these skins are more like patterns/textures not "skins".

 


Where is that dragon skin I am saving my gems for? Having the flaming effects and different opacity from the default skin does not make it much different so all the Griffon skins have my thumbs down.

 


Look at that Reforged Warhound, this is a NEW SKIN. not recolored, not different texture or pattern, entirely new. But for 2,000 gems, that is very expensive. I considered the Crowned Ancient and Twin Sands a new skin for I'm a sucker for dinosaurs and huskies. These two skins could have been worth 400 gems each we are able to choose it not random. These galleries may be disheartening, most of the new skins lack uniqueness and creativity compared to what we have from the unique glider skins.

 

So next time there's new item in Gemstore, the ultimate trick is to compare it to the default skin, in form, design and experience, that is how I would choose a **new skin.** otherwise I would save my gems for something else rather than regret later. I am still expecting to see totally new unique skins like Vlast or Aurene for Griffon or Temar/Tegon for Jackal.

 

[starlinvf.1358]

So basically you judge the worth of a skin based on its mesh.......? That can be both prudent AND foolish, but that line of logic would conclude that Sunrise, Twilight and Eternity are all the same skin, and therefore indistinguishable in value.

[Djinn.9245]

> @sixburn.5807 said:

> **Buying the worthy "NEW SKIN**

> So what is a skin? Spending my hard earned gold or real money in-game is a big deal, but how do I spot a skin worth buying? I am less concerned about weapons or outfits, and the most beautiful ones are already in-game, so I will only include some Mount skins and Gliders at this point.

 

When you compare mount skins with glider skins, I see your point. Many of the gliders are very different, not just wings with different effects. A glider where you stand on a flaming sphere, isn't wings at all. But the mount skins are mainly just the same mount with a different look. Should both concepts be worth the same amount of money? It certainly isn't worth as much money as they are currently asking for mount skins. And I certainly am not going to be suckered into buying the entire "adoption" collection just so I can get the skin(s) I might like. Terrible concept.

[STIHL.2489]

I buy skins based on what appeals to me visually, I am not making an investment into anything but style, so I treat it like I am buying a frivolous dress shirt, not work boots.

 

But that is me.

[Shirlias.8104]

I do agree with your definition of skin, but i'd also really hope we won't see any cross skin like dragons on griffon, or even worse named characters as mount.

 

It is unlikely to happen due to the very different model, but even so i do really hope we will see only reskins.

[Danikat.8537]

For me the only considerations are: 1) Do I like it? 2) Do I like it enough to pay what it costs?

 

I don't worry about whether it has a new mesh, or particle effects or whatever else, simply whether I like the overall effect. I bought the bat wings and the black feather wings and I don't regret either because they're different enough to me that it was worth paying for them, and more importantly I like how they look. On the other hand I didn't buy the flaming meteor glider because although it's certainly unique and distinctive I think it's an eyesore and I'd get sick of using it very quickly so it's not remotely worth buying for me. (Which is not to say the same applies to anyone else - if they like it then that's great.)

[Shirlias.8104]

> @Danikat.8537 said:

> For me the only considerations are: 1) Do I like it? 2) Do I like it enough to pay what it costs?

 

The fact is that if you don't know what's the work behind the one you define as "skin" you won't be able to understand if the price is legit or not.

 

It's more like a compulsive purchase without any cognition of what are you buying.

 

The point here is that everybody should be able to understand if they are trying to sell you something overpriced.

The fact that you would eventually buy it whatever the price is definitely normal.-

 

[Zania.8461]

I think you might be mixing up "new skin" and "new model". Objects in a game consist of a polygon mesh (model) which defines the shape of the object (with possibly attached physics and collision), the textures (what usually called skins that represent the color, patterns, dye channels, etc) and normal maps (use of lighting to add visual appearance of 3D without adding polygons - ie shadows, bumps etc).

 

If the mount is a simple recolor with different dye channels/patterns its a new skin. If its the same model but looks like it has more details and/or higher reflectivity, etc, its a normal map change. If its a completely different shape, its a new model.

 

There are several new mounts with different normal maps which look stunning, and I would get in a heartbeat. There are several new models which I think don't add enough to the mount to be worth getting. Most new skins are just meh.

 

EDIT: Minor clarification on textures

[Teofa Tsavo.9863]

The vast majority of skins in this game fail a simple Mk1 eyeball test for me. No need to complicate it past that.

[Danikat.8537]

> @Shirlias.8104 said:

> > @Danikat.8537 said:

> > For me the only considerations are: 1) Do I like it? 2) Do I like it enough to pay what it costs?

>

> The fact is that if you don't know what's the work behind the one you define as "skin" you won't be able to understand if the price is legit or not.

>

> It's more like a compulsive purchase without any cognition of what are you buying.

>

> The point here is that everybody should be able to understand if they are trying to sell you something overpriced.

> The fact that you would eventually buy it whatever the price is definitely normal.-

>

 

Ok....except I'm not paying for the amount of work that went into it. I'm paying for the end result, and since it's a cosmetic item the only thing that determines whether it's a good choice _for me_ is whether I like how it looks.

 

This is like when people tell me I should never buy a mocha latte from a coffee shop and should always get some overly complicated special brew that's been slow roasted on the eastern slopes of the Andes at dawn on the 1st day of Spring and then drink it black with absolutely nothing in it because that's better. Ok yes it may technically be better coffee according to the people who know about coffee, and there's probably far more hassle that's gone into it to justify the jumped up price the shop is inevitably charging. But I can't stand the taste of coffee on it's own. No matter how good it may technically be or how hard it was to make I am not going to enjoy drinking it. I'd have to wait for it to go cool and then gulp it down so as little as possible touches my taste buds. Why on earth would I ever pay for that? Especially when the alternative is a drink I will enjoy.

 

It's the same with these skins. I'm not Anet - I'm not having to pay the artists and modellers by the hour for the amount of time they spent designing and creating the item. I'm the customer who is buying the finished product for my own personal use and enjoyment. Why would I buy a skin I don't like and will actively avoid using over one I really like, just because it's been changed more from the default design?

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @Shirlias.8104 said:

> > @Danikat.8537 said:

> The fact is that if you don't know what's the work behind the one you define as "skin" you won't be able to understand if the price is legit or not.

 

That's not a "fact". The price of anything (real world or digital) is, of course, influenced by the skill, labor, infrastructure, and materials required to make it. But the actual price is always consistent with what people are willing to pay, regardless of costs.

 

Sodas, such as Coke|Pepsi, etc, cost pennies to serve at a restaurant. Even including labor and the cups, it's maybe a dime or two. And yet customers are willing to pay 1-2 dollars for their carbonated syrup, because, well, we want what we want.

 

There's no such thing as a "legit" price. There's simply what the buyer is willing to pay compromising with what the seller is willing to take.

 

So it's fair to say that tons of buyers care about how skins get made, but it's also evident that tons do not. People who like backpack wings (and gliders) seem more than willing to shell out 1000s of gems to have identical wings, save for the colors (and to be fair, the difference isn't just black vs white vs gold; there's a lot of detail in the shading|tone|brightness).

 

There's nothing wrong with the OP being unwilling to spend any gems on designs they think are weak or too simplistic in variation. But there's nothing wrong with someone else saying, "I don't care, I like the gold wings even though I have the white."

 

tl;dr the price of things is influenced by costs, but there's no formula that requires price to align with cost. Preferences are not facts.

[sixburn.5807]

> @starlinvf.1358 said:

> So basically you judge the worth of a skin based on its mesh.......? That can be both prudent AND foolish, but that line of logic would conclude that Sunrise, Twilight and Eternity are all the same skin, and therefore indistinguishable in value.

 

The entirety, the whole design. the creative value. Twilight, Sunrise and Eternity are great and its concept is unique enough. I love Eternity, they are the best definition what a legendary weapon is, in this game. But objectively, design-wise, we all know they are all the same though. but then again IMHO I don't object to that. They are designed that way.

 

And yeah who cares about the design or items, I agree with this:

 

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> tl;dr the price of things is influenced by costs, but there's no formula that requires price to align with cost. Preferences are not facts.

 

End of the day it depends on the buyer's choice. I am pointing out that I hope as a player, the future of mount skins will be as creative as the gliders. I could be wrong but I personally love the unique variety of glider skins compared to the adoption licenses skins. In another way of looking at it, they are variants of the same "mount species" so makes sense with the Black Lion Stables concept. Identical/Same items with different colors being sold in Gemstone doesn't seem just to me. I wish for white wings and the golden variety when I bought my black wings a long time ago. GW2 is a game we love, a free-sub MMO , but it is also a business so I understand. There are way, way worse games out there.

[TheQuickFox.3826]

A (re)skin originally meant a new texture / overlay for an existing 3D model or GUI without changing the shape.

That means, a new model, like a differently shaped sword or a rabbit with horns is not a new skin but a new model. But I acknowledge that the definitions have been shifting a bit in the last 10 years or so.

[Ashabhi.1365]

I get it... Some skins are "worth more" than others. The OP has ideas on how to determine the "worth" of a skin based on it's difference from the original. I place the worth of a skin on personal preference. Both points of view are correct. Another thing that determines "worth" is rarity. If obtaining a skin is based on RNG, then the rarer a skin is, the more it will be worth. Price and rarity (except for one stand-alone skin) is the same. It's up to us, as consumers to determine the worth of a skin. In other words, if the price is the same across the board, and the rarity is likewise the same, the worth of a skin is purely based on the preference of the person buying the skin.

[Teofa Tsavo.9863]

> @sixburn.5807 said:

> > @starlinvf.1358 said:

> > So basically you judge the worth of a skin based on its mesh.......? That can be both prudent AND foolish, but that line of logic would conclude that Sunrise, Twilight and Eternity are all the same skin, and therefore indistinguishable in value.

>

> The entirety, the whole design. the creative value. Twilight, Sunrise and Eternity are great and its concept is unique enough. I love Eternity, they are the best definition what a legendary weapon is, in this game. But objectively, design-wise, we all know they are all the same though. but then again IMHO I don't object to that. They are designed that way.

>

The mesh on those 3 are seriously Milkshape Tutorial level, appropriate to the cardboard sword inspired shape. A bare bones minimal carrier for the effects.. and they aren't the only ones.

 

Form to Function is a very important consideration for me on what I will equip or purchase whether it is armor or weapons.. or anything else. Scale is very important as well. Two considerations totally missing on most of the dreck GW2 churns out. I recall the revolvers.. great design, great mesh.. and so horrifyingly out of scale they were laughable. The two I looted became Ecto and mats in record time.

 

 

[Ashen.2907]

> @STIHL.2489 said:

> I buy skins based on what appeals to me visually, I am not making an investment into anything but style, so I treat it like I am buying a frivolous dress shirt, not work boots.

>

> But that is me.

 

This.

 

If it is visually appealing to me, the whole purpose of cosmetic variants, then I might be inclined to purchase it. Cost, method of purchase, and the like also come into play. Degree of deviation from a base model might be a minor consideration but is not a major determining factor.

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

Q: How to spot what skins are worth buying

A: the skin makes my ‘grabby hands’ come out

 

Q: is the price legit

A: if I’m willing to pay it, it’s legit. If I’m not then it’s overpriced. There’s no relationship between cost, effort, quality, uniqueness and price when buying pixels on your computer screen. The only thing that determines whether the price for a bunch of pixels is legit (for you) is the strength of your wants.

[Dovienya.6597]

> @Danikat.8537 said:

> > @Shirlias.8104 said:

> > > @Danikat.8537 said:

> > > For me the only considerations are: 1) Do I like it? 2) Do I like it enough to pay what it costs?

> >

> > The fact is that if you don't know what's the work behind the one you define as "skin" you won't be able to understand if the price is legit or not.

> >

> > It's more like a compulsive purchase without any cognition of what are you buying.

> >

> > The point here is that everybody should be able to understand if they are trying to sell you something overpriced.

> > The fact that you would eventually buy it whatever the price is definitely normal.-

> >

>

> Ok....except I'm not paying for the amount of work that went into it. I'm paying for the end result, and since it's a cosmetic item the only thing that determines whether it's a good choice _for me_ is whether I like how it looks.

>

> This is like when people tell me I should never buy a mocha latte from a coffee shop and should always get some overly complicated special brew that's been slow roasted on the eastern slopes of the Andes at dawn on the 1st day of Spring and then drink it black with absolutely nothing in it because that's better. Ok yes it may technically be better coffee according to the people who know about coffee, and there's probably far more hassle that's gone into it to justify the jumped up price the shop is inevitably charging. But I can't stand the taste of coffee on it's own. No matter how good it may technically be or how hard it was to make I am not going to enjoy drinking it. I'd have to wait for it to go cool and then gulp it down so as little as possible touches my taste buds. Why on earth would I ever pay for that? Especially when the alternative is a drink I will enjoy.

>

> It's the same with these skins. I'm not Anet - I'm not having to pay the artists and modellers by the hour for the amount of time they spent designing and creating the item. I'm the customer who is buying the finished product for my own personal use and enjoyment. Why would I buy a skin I don't like and will actively avoid using over one I really like, just because it's been changed more from the default design?

 

I agree with you, to an extent. You shouldn't buy something simply because it is a better value if you don't like it/if your preference lies elsewhere. That does not mean that awareness of personal value, and awareness of actual value are mutually exclusive. As to your last point, I think that's exactly the issue people are taking with this business model. That people are forced to either overspend or gamble for skins that they do like, risking their gold/money (either way it impacts the economy and Arenanet gets paid) to possibly end up with, to use your analogy, the special coffee that tastes like crapola. Would you ever go to that coffee shop again if you had to risk getting 29 special coffees or other unwanted drinks, for a chance at a latte?

 

 

 

 

[Teofa Tsavo.9863]

I see the lootbox bundle as a smart, but ethically shady way to market. Create a small number of skins you can be almost certain people will want. Pad the box with a large number of low effort filler skins. Sell as many, or more likely far more of those filler skins as the few skins people actually want because of the RNG factor.

 

Would be the same as offering a very desired Sword skin and packing the box full of Iron Sword recolors.

[Zaklex.6308]

So, basic mounts have 1 dye channel...the adoption mounts have anywhere between 2 and 4 dye channels...that takes work, not just a rehash of the original skin(otherwise the originals would have more than 1 dye channel).