Counterpoint: GW2 has the best in-game cash shop I've ever seen

[Oglaf.1074]

> @pah.4931 said:

> > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > > @pah.4931 said:

> > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > > > > @pah.4931 said:

> > > > > Would everyone have rather them not launch mount skins at all? They never ONCE advertised PoF with mount skins as if that was included content. You, the player, do not DESERVE mount skins. They, Anet, does not OWE you anything. Not a single person here bought PoF thinking they will get mount skins. (If I'm wrong, please point me to where Anet said PoF comes with mount skins).

> > > > >

> > > > > Had they not implemented mount skins at all, your life would not be any different than if you just don't buy mount skins right now.

> > > > >

> > > > > Black Lion Chests are FAR worse than these licences. This new system is not some nefarious breach in contract between Anet and its playerbase.

> > > > >

> > > > > You are not a victim.

> > > > >

> > > > > This is no worse (and it's actually better because you can't get dupes) than any digital trading card game ever made.

> > > > >

> > > > > Finally, I bet a good amount of people actually enjoy this type of "lottery".

> > > >

> > > > I think you are misinterpreting what people want. People WANT to pay for mount skins, but for those they desire, not for RNG loot box.

> > >

> > > I know what people want. I don't care. Anet is a company and if they have data strongly suggesting that selling skins this way will make them more money then I think, as a company that wants to grow and pay salaries (which is good for those families and the economy), they are morally obligated to sell skins this way. You are a consenting consumer when you buy these boxes. There is no trickery.

> > >

> > > Why would Anet, as a company, refuse more profits?? (remember, what they are doing is legal and within their rights and takes advantage of no one)

> > >

> > > I think all those who are upset need to pretend they own a business. It's hard. Laying off people is even harder (we've had several rounds at the company I work). If they could have prevented that, don't you think they should do ANYTHING (legal) they can in order to keep their employees safe and happy???? Seriously. Its y'all who have no hearts, not Anet.

> >

> > Anet has survived and thrived for many years without pushing gambling on it's playerbase.

> >

> > We've been more than happy to buy premium content (buy, not gamble for) to keep both the company and game alive for years.

> >

> >

>

> You have no idea what Anet's financials are. Sorry.

 

Neither do you, so by your own logic you just invalidated your own argument.

 

 

[Aplethoraof.2643]

I said this in one of the other threads (there should be 1 thread, not several of them, on this issue. There is a line between "making a company aware of a grievance" and "spamming the fourms"), but I really think a lot of GW2 players have been away from other MMOs with other cashshops for so long that they've forgotten what a real cash-shop looks like. I could see a real issue, if you could get skins you already had, couldn't sell the duplicates, and they provided tangible bonuses. But they don't. This is literally a GW2 equivalent of a "first world issue". Like people having a knee-jerk reaction to their favorite coffee-chain getting rid of a really good pastry and getting all uppity.

 

I don't think they should repeat this for future skins. But I think the playerbase should also keep things on the level that it really is. Blowing it out of proportion just makes the issue hard or impossible to solve. If everyone is exaggerating all over the place, noone can get a proper grasp on the issue (if there even is one to begin with).

 

If people really want a solution, they will keep this on point and not to over-the-top with exaggerations and anecdotes.

 

Since people are going over the top, I can only assume that people are bored and need a complaint bandwagon to jump on. This issue is a "fad issue" and will vanish as soon as people get bored with arguing over it. And it'll be business as usual after that.

[Torolan.5816]

Pah, are you´re from NA? Your line of reasoning is pretty much what i would expect from someone who has worked in the factory of a detroit car manufacturer that turned the skies black and refuses to acknowledge that his factory has led to te demise of the city and environment and is always the best because it is your company and you have to be loyal to it because it was always loyal to you.

A litte reminder about that: Your company gives a skritt about you after you retire or when you run out of usefulness, especially in systems where no social security helps you. Just ask anyone who had a real, seriously paid job in the steel, shipyard, mining or car manufacturing business about that.

 

As we are already opened that box on your own, I think you are shortsighted and heartless when you only have economy and your own skritt in mind. I honestly never understood how people could be like this, and i can´t understand it less and less the more I learn about the world.

You may live comfortable today, but what about tomorrow? How do you sleep when you think about the poor people that have burned their food money for the lottery because they fell back in their habitual behavior?

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @pah.4931 said:

> > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > > @pah.4931 said:

> > > Would everyone have rather them not launch mount skins at all? They never ONCE advertised PoF with mount skins as if that was included content. You, the player, do not DESERVE mount skins. They, Anet, does not OWE you anything. Not a single person here bought PoF thinking they will get mount skins. (If I'm wrong, please point me to where Anet said PoF comes with mount skins).

> > >

> > > Had they not implemented mount skins at all, your life would not be any different than if you just don't buy mount skins right now.

> > >

> > > Black Lion Chests are FAR worse than these licences. This new system is not some nefarious breach in contract between Anet and its playerbase.

> > >

> > > You are not a victim.

> > >

> > > This is no worse (and it's actually better because you can't get dupes) than any digital trading card game ever made.

> > >

> > > Finally, I bet a good amount of people actually enjoy this type of "lottery".

> >

> > I think you are misinterpreting what people want. People WANT to pay for mount skins, but for those they desire, not for RNG loot box.

>

> I know what people want. I don't care.

 

So why do you create such a thread? If you didn't care you would just play the game and enjoy your time.

[Oglaf.1074]

> @Aplethoraof.2643 said:

> Since people are going over the top, I can only assume that people are bored and need a complaint bandwagon to jump on.

 

Yeah no, loot box gambling is an actual valid concern.

 

[Aplethoraof.2643]

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > @Aplethoraof.2643 said:

> > Since people are going over the top, I can only assume that people are bored and need a complaint bandwagon to jump on.

>

> Yeah no, loot box gambling is an actual valid concern.

>

 

It would be a valid concern, if it actually had an impact the balance of the game.

 

If you can't play the game knowing someone next to you has a shiny-er skin than you, that is your own issue to deal with.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @Aplethoraof.2643 said:

> > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > > @Aplethoraof.2643 said:

> > > Since people are going over the top, I can only assume that people are bored and need a complaint bandwagon to jump on.

> >

> > Yeah no, loot box gambling is an actual valid concern.

> >

>

> It would be a valid concern, if it actually had an impact the balance of the game.

>

> If you can't play the game knowing someone next to you has a shiny-er skin than you, that is your own issue to deal with.

 

If a person can prove that shiny skins of other players cause performance drop, they can use it as argument.

[Aplethoraof.2643]

If someone doesn't have the specs to run the game and has to constantly run with everything turned off, that is also their own issue. If you have a potato computer, expect potato results.

[Malediktus.9250]

Just because others are even worse, does not mean Anet needs to copy them more and more.

I would rather pay 15€ per LS chapter or monthly fee than this garbage shop.

[Iason Evan.3806]

RNG lootboxes suck.

[Teofa Tsavo.9863]

A better store? Easy, since EQ2 has a "player created" section of their store that offers a wider diversity and selection of items the Devs don't have to create.. and pays back to the players that have created them.

[jhnsmth.2641]

@op: I have to agree, GW2 cash shop is OK.

 

1. Basic mount skins are totally fine (not like basic glider skin, which is ugly as hell). So mount skins are purely cosmetic items.

2. Only finite amount of money required to get all skins (so this is not like real gambling, loot boxes or some lottery).

3. This game has no subscriptions (yet). It is unavoidable to have some income, other than the fixed price for the expansions itself. The cosmetic/QoL items are the only marketable assets. (I suppose we do not want to see P2W items in the cash shop :).

[Zania.8461]

There is a good point to OP. The cash shop in GW2 does not influence the ability to play the game. So it is NOT B2W. Which, but all means, is a great thing. The recent change in direction does not change this fact. Even with the randomness noone actually needs these skins to be able to complete the entirety of GW2s content.

 

However. The big difference is that GW2 is not a content heavy game. It is called "Fashion Wars" for a reason. Most of the time is spent getting skins one wants to make their characters look in a desired manner. And this is what the recent change undermines. If you really want a flaming griffon to complete your character's looks...well...you get to spend anywhere between 400 and 12000 gems. It is not an issue for people who will want to get all the skins anyway, but for the majority of the population who want just one or two skins (or 1-2 skins per mount!), it is a huge spread.

 

ANet really dropped the ball on this one. If backpack/glider combo costs 700 gems, do the same for mounts and everyone will be happy.

[Grimheart.2853]

> @thehipone.6812 said:

> Come on now OP, it is torches and pitchforks time. You can't go on making reasonable arguments. (/s)

 

Well he's not, so what's the problem?

[Nabuko Darayon.9645]

> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> Used to have*

>

> This is a B2P game that for years stood as an example for fair microtransaction model. We are currently experiencing Anet testing waters of how far and how fast they can go with this scheme. It didn't start tomorrow, it's happening since the revamp of BLCs and introducing more and more unique skins gated behind RNG.

>

> We are not talking about single mount being BLC exclusive here. We are talking about 30 skins locked behind RNG box that you have no control how much you have to spend to get the one you want. 1 player will pay 400 gems to get the one desired skin, the other may be required to buy all of them to get it.

>

> Unless players make their disgust heard this is only a step to worse practices. So this is one of many points where the community has to say "NO". If you keep people down with claims you posted, you are only hurting yourself in the future.

 

I agree with you on this about the future but the current rampage on reddit doesn't even touch this issue. It's more about whining that someone else can afford to buy the 30-mount pack then whining about the RNG aspect. IMO if ANet clearly states that they wanted to release all the Pack 1 Mounts together in an RNG form I'm fine with that. I actually prefer that instead if they went around silently releasing 5 skins per patch where they would cost 1200-2000 gems (None even mentions how expensive the Warhound skin is). What needs to be done is that someone talks with ANet in a polite and respectful way (or the people from Black Lion's Arch set) and figure out a solid way to make majority content.

 

Like I said I agree with you about the worries of the future, but I'm actually fine atm since this gives me an opportunity to buy these skins throughout the year with Gold->Gem conversation. Yes, it will probably take me a while before I get that Starbound Griffon like the other "cool" kids have but then again I'm not a kid anymore and I'm not attracted by Shinies others have, but with the personality they portray. And so far the Torchbarers and Pitchforkcarriers showed obnoxious personality traits.

[Aplethoraof.2643]

The best looking mount skins (individually) would likely cost around 2k gems, given the current pricing on individual skins. Best looking being the ones that change the mount in a significant way.

[Biff.5312]

The argument presented is basically that we should be grateful it isn't worse than it is. No, we should expect a certain standard from a product we pay for.

Also, things like storage space are not as big an issue for two reasons: 1- the amount of space you're allowed without paying to expand is not unreasonable or unmanageable, so it's simply an option (as are the skins). 2- the amount charged for the expansions are not unreasonable (unlike the skins). Because the skins are random, it is likely that a given player will have to spend multiples of the 400 gem price to get what he wants. For the same cost, he could buy a bag slot that he KNOWS will be as-advertised.

A ripoff is a ripoff. The fact that not EVERYTHING they sell is a ripoff doesn't alter that.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @Aplethoraof.2643 said:

> The best looking mount skins (individually) would likely cost around 2k gems, given the current pricing on individual skins. Best looking being the ones that change the mount in a significant way.

 

Actually I spent 2k gems yesterday that were sitting in my pocket. I got 0 of the skins I wanted. If mounts were guaranteed but tiered in price (depending on skin complexity) I would already have at least 1 of the few skins I wanted from current box. Even if it was 2k gems (maybe 1 of those from the box are on the level of hound skin, the rest aura ones are 1,2k max and those pathetic color patterns should be 300 gems max).

[Blockhead Magee.3092]

Sorry, but a cash shop that lets you buy a chance at what you want instead of just being able to buy what you want is a bad thing. I suppose it could be the best the OP has ever seen, but that doesn't mean it's a good one.

[Blaeys.3102]

I don't play any of those other games, so I can only judge what I see in this one.

 

**They need to sell one clearly defined item for one clearly defined price.**

 

It really is that simple.

 

When the only way to buy something is to potentially buy stuff you do not want, that is about as shady as you can get in any kind of shop (online, offline, whatever).

 

It is a deviation from the game and company environment we saw five years ago and something people need to be making a lot of noise about until they come to their senses.

 

[Ashen.2907]

Whenever people posted pro-mount threads on these forums, and elsewhere, one of the arguments often given was how much revenue they would generate for the game. One of the arguments against mounts was the likelihood that they would be monetized via rng loot boxes.

 

Well, now the pro mount crowd have what they wanted and the anti mount crowd have been shown to have been right (at least in this regard).

 

I dislike the RNG monetization methods used here, and in the industry as a whole, but the skins are purely cosmetic....and hey players still have the mounts they pushed forsince pre launch.

[Ensign.2189]

It's all about effective monetization strategy. While I think GW2 has made several big mistakes there, they are, to their credit, experimenting and learning.

 

For simplicity, imagine that you have three types of players:

 

1 - "The Whales". Players who will buy whatever you throw at them, with seemingly bottomless pockets and minimal price sensitivity.

2 - Discriminating Customers. Players who are willing to spend to varying degrees, but are price sensitive and spend their money judiciously.

3 - Non-Customers. Players with no interest in spending any money on cash shop items at any price point, or even necessarily buying expansions.

 

If you are a free to play phone game company, you live in a world where the vast majority of your players are in category 3. You have a small fraction in category 1, and category 2 is relatively depopulated. This is driven in no small part by how substitutable free to play games are - it's easy to play the FotM game and there's little loyalty. Thus all your money has to be made quickly or off of that handful of players that are super invested in your game. Hence the ads and gamblebox whale-centric monetization strategy.

 

GW2 and other AAA titles are quite a bit different. Most of your players are, at face value, at least in category 2 - since they bought a game box or game key to begin with. So they are clearly willing to pay for your game. They also tend to be more invested in your game - more single game players and long term community. This means that for a AAA game like GW2, there is actually a lot more money to be made off of selling to discriminating customers than in selling to whales. This should be obvious from these forum threads - there is a *lot* of willingness to spend on mount skins by players that expect to get something of value for $5-$10. There is a ton of money there.

 

At the same time, you do not want to neglect the whales. There are players that are perfectly happy to throw thousand dollar chunks at your game if they get a payoff for it, and you want to give them outlets for it. So anything aimed at group #2 leaves whale money on the table, and anything aimed at group #1 makes group #2 frustrated that an attractive version of the product isn't offered to them.

 

So the secret sauce for a game like this is, how to do you keep the whales happy while not neglecting the broad, fat tail of the distribution of more judicious buyers?

 

The previous attempt at that was the black lion chest. It has gone through a couple iterations now that I think miss the mark. The original mechanism was to offer the gamble box with some big 'wins' in the form of weapon skins, and later the permanent contracts. The whales could invest a lot of money into those gamble boxes (and accumulate a lot of quality of life boosts in the process), and the more discriminating buyer would be monetized through the resale of those high ticket items on gold trading post (monetized through the gold->gem exchange). This has a couple problems - the exchange isn't nearly as efficient as you'd like as a way to monetize the gamble boxes, and the tradability of the big ticket items means they're going to drop to a market clearing price, which misses value under the curve - the rare stuff is so rare that it doesn't feel rewarding to buy, and anything more common just feels like another commodity.

 

The follow up of account bound, one time specific skins is an attempt to address that by forcing those skins to be bought through the gamble boxes. This probably helped make them more attractive to the whales by giving them something to spend on every month or two, but makes them a much more frustrating and 'evil' product to discriminating customers.

 

The mount licenses are a better version of that idea. Let's be clear here - the licenses are a whale item. You're establishing a product where whales want to keep it up to date and complete, and get good value from spending a lot on it. It is *not* a good product for discriminating customers. They are, rightfully, pissed about it.

 

To complete the circle they'll want to start selling singles as well.

 

The target is for less price sensitive customers to buy a lot more than they otherwise would by giving them a good deal from keeping their packs / licenses up to date. You capture and provide good value under the curve by offering singletons and combos from the gamble set at a premium price point on a rotating schedule. You don't want to make literally everything available all the time as these are substitute goods and would cannibalize each other - all singleton offerings are best done as limited time offers.

 

If I am advising A.Net I like this strategy. You blast out mount skins in a big set, before offering individual offerings that might dissuade a mass purchase. You collect your $120 from your big spenders (thank you!) and get some additional buy-in from players interested in getting some skins and buying a couple licenses or a pack of 10. Then, a week or two after your first big living story release, I would start releasing individual skins - 5 at a time, one for each mount, on a rotating basis, at a premium price point (I'd guess around 400 gems for the recolors, 1000 for the glowy skins). In 6 months I release another series of skins, similar to these, putting them into the licenses first before breaking them out into singles.

 

While it has the initial backlash, I think that's an attractive model moving forward for monetizing both whales and discerning players. Players with bigger collections have a stronger incentive to buy the licenses and complete their collection; discerning buyers get a variety to choose from through short term offers, and cannibalization is minimized.

 

We haven't seen the later parts of the plan yet, but I think they are set up really well. I also want to point out that once this is in full swing, this is a much more popular, and likely more profitable, model than anything I have seen elsewhere on the market. Hopefully we are on the same page and A.Net follows through on a plan like this, I think it'd be really popular long term and as an econ nerd I'd love to see it play out. So let's do it people, execute!

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @Ashen.2907 said:

> Whenever people posted pro-mount threads on these forums, and elsewhere, one of the arguments often given was how much revenue they would generate for the game. One of the arguments against mounts was the likelihood that they would be monetized via rng loot boxes.

>

> Well, now the pro mount crowd have what they wanted and the anti mount crowd have been shown to have been right (at least in this regard).

>

> I dislike the RNG monetization methods used here, and in the industry as a whole, but the skins are purely cosmetic....and hey players still have the mounts they pushed forsince pre launch.

 

People are happy to pay for mount skins directly even if they are more expensive per skin instead of relying on RNG luck. The poll clearly shows it: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/14567/poll-mount-skins-distribution-a-serious-poll/p1

[pah.4931]

> @"Blockhead Magee.3092" said:

> Sorry, but a cash shop that lets you buy a chance at what you want instead of just being able to buy what you want is a bad thing. I suppose it could be the best the OP has ever seen, but that doesn't mean it's a good one.

 

But they have been consistent with this. i.e., black lion chests (slightly different but still very RNG-based).

 

The only miss, imo, is that mount skins should be able to be put on the TP (though if that were the case then I am certain they would not have made it so you couldn't get dupes).

 

I have no problem with people disagreeing with how this went down and expressing their feelings. For sure, you need to do that. But the posts I am reading are so entitled and whiney, it's just... sad. As if Anet owes them mount skins, when 3 months ago they didn't have mounts.

 

It's funny. Blizzard adds things to WoW like Looking For Dungeon/Raid that has serious negative impacts on the actually in-game design and its players, and most people just go "if you don't like it, don't do it" unable to see how such decisions effect the holistic picture. And then when Anet adds something to the game that does NOT impact in-game design or its players at all, the "don't like it, don't do it" argument is "stupid" and "wrong."

[pah.4931]

> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > @Ashen.2907 said:

> > Whenever people posted pro-mount threads on these forums, and elsewhere, one of the arguments often given was how much revenue they would generate for the game. One of the arguments against mounts was the likelihood that they would be monetized via rng loot boxes.

> >

> > Well, now the pro mount crowd have what they wanted and the anti mount crowd have been shown to have been right (at least in this regard).

> >

> > I dislike the RNG monetization methods used here, and in the industry as a whole, but the skins are purely cosmetic....and hey players still have the mounts they pushed forsince pre launch.

>

> People are happy to pay for mount skins directly even if they are more expensive per skin instead of relying on RNG luck. The poll clearly shows it: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/14567/poll-mount-skins-distribution-a-serious-poll/p1

 

But the problem here is that you are thinking like a player and not a business owner. I am sure I could find a poll showing that people would be WAY happier with a big mac if it were served on a wheat bun. But that doesn't mean that would make McDonalds more money. And that's without getting too much into how flawed a poll like this is, on the day after the mob grabbed the torches and pitchforks on a forum that probably sees regular traffic from about 1% of the playerbase.

 

Anet is either 1) test-driving this type of offering, or 2) they have the data that suggest they will make more money this way.

 

If you were a president of a company, your number one priority is protecting your staff. And you do that by growing your business and increasing revenue. This move increases revenue (probably even accounting for potential revenue lost from angry players (who probably didn't spend much on the game anyways)).