[Suggestion] Gemstore Skin Prepurchase/Kickstarter

[Shirlias.8104]

Since ANET needs to make money and players do want skins not on RNG and some of them are ok to pay with cash, what about a kickstarter with a multiple poll option in order to vote what ANET should work on?

 

Shortly the issues that players ( many of them at least ) do have about the new skins ANET decided to introduce.

 

1. **RNG** ( they want a skin, but they don't want to gamble ).

2. **SKIN COST** ( 2k for the Jackal skin could be way much, but ANET could do it better depends how many players will purchase it ).

3. **COLLECTION** ( in order to get the skin you want you could happen to pay from Y to Y x2,x3,x4,x5,x6... etc )

 

> The **KICKSTARTER will start with multiple polls** in order to understand what to develop.

 

Every player could vote for X skins, so ANET will be able to select the ones that players like the most.

The survery should start from the game ( a link outside ) and will only be avaible for customers which purchased all the expansions ( it's not being bad, but it's a fact that players who support the game buy the expansion, and among them there are those who pay with cash. It's just a fact ).

 

> Then there will be **anticipations** from ANET, and after some **drafts** ( and maybe a **videos** ) the players will get **the possibility to PREORDER the skin at a lower price**.

 

The preorder will allow players to prepurchase the mount for a **discounted price **

 


 

Let's say 50% less, ie 10€ for the cool mounts and 5€ for the reskin with slightly improvements.

The second one could be a 2x mount since there's not much work on em.

 

After the preorder has ended, the skin will be developed and released.

After the release their cost will incrase by 100%, ie from 800 gems to 1600 gems, for the cool mounts, and from 400 to 800 gems for the slightly different mounts.

 

> ANET will be able to have **nice earnings** from this system, and players will be able to purchase **skins for less money**. The ones who don't want to pay real money for mounts will be still able to purchase them. And more important, the **RNG system will die** and **THERE WON'T BE ANY NEED FOR BUNDLES** ( at least for the mounts skins. i doubt that blc will be removed or modified ).

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

That said, the purchase thing could be made without any survey or poll, but would be nice if there will be a better communication between ANET and Players about these features.

 

What do you think?

Would you like a system like this instead?

[Ayumi Spender.1082]

There isn't a "This is making my head hurt option".

This is confusing...

[GrubySzymek.1362]

Kickstarter is for small companies who start their bussiness. Anet is AAA company with **steady income to run the game**. They are not bankrupting, they do not struggle. Actually, they grew after HoT.

 

Why people act like ArenaNet is starving without **more** gemstore money? They do not. They could always use more money of course, everyone can, but they earn enough for a 5 year old game. The playerbase is steady and the income is steady.

 

One more thing to mention - microtransactions. The very name is obvious, to pay multiple times small money for small things. **120$ mount skin pack is not microtransaction. It's 4 PoF accounts.**

[Shirlias.8104]

> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

 

> Why people act like ArenaNet is starving without gemstore money? They do not. They could always use more money of course, everyone can, but they earn enough for a 5 year old game. The playerbase is steady and the income is steady.

 

It's nonsense.

You say they don't need gemstore money and then you say that due to the steady playerbase they do have a steady income ( i see only the purchase of the expansions, if you remove the cash from the gemstore ).

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @Shirlias.8104 said:

> > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

>

> > Why people act like ArenaNet is starving without gemstore money? They do not. They could always use more money of course, everyone can, but they earn enough for a 5 year old game. The playerbase is steady and the income is steady.

>

> It's nonsense.

> You say they don't need gemstore money and then you say that due to the steady playerbase they do have a steady income ( i see only the purchase of the expansions, if you remove the cash from the gemstore ).

 

I probably should have typed "more gemstore money". Because they earn money already and most of it comes from microtransactions. They are not justified to use lootbox tricks to exploit their customers.

[Shirlias.8104]

> @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> > @Shirlias.8104 said:

> > > @Kheldorn.5123 said:

> >

> > > Why people act like ArenaNet is starving without gemstore money? They do not. They could always use more money of course, everyone can, but they earn enough for a 5 year old game. The playerbase is steady and the income is steady.

> >

> > It's nonsense.

> > You say they don't need gemstore money and then you say that due to the steady playerbase they do have a steady income ( i see only the purchase of the expansions, if you remove the cash from the gemstore ).

>

> I probably should have typed "more gemstore money". Because they earn money already and most of it comes from microtransactions. They are not justified to use lootbox tricks to exploit their customers.

 

I do agree then, since i also consider that possibility.

[CharterforGw.3149]

I'm not entirely certain what this system is, I would alteast change the requirement of all expansions to a requirement of specific expansions depending on the item that is being added.

 

for example, someone with PoF, but not HoT should still be able to vote on a mount skin, but not be able to vote on a glider skin.

[Shirlias.8104]

> @CharterforGw.3149 said:

> I'm not entirely certain what this system is, I would alteast change the requirement of all expansions to a requirement of specific expansions depending on the item that is being added.

>

> for example, someone with PoF, but not HoT should still be able to vote on a mount skin, but not be able to vote on a glider skin.

 

You have a point ( my intent was to forbid f2p accounts to vote, in order to avoid spam and fake votes as for the weapon contest ).

[CharterforGw.3149]

> @Shirlias.8104 said:

> > @CharterforGw.3149 said:

> > I'm not entirely certain what this system is, I would alteast change the requirement of all expansions to a requirement of specific expansions depending on the item that is being added.

> >

> > for example, someone with PoF, but not HoT should still be able to vote on a mount skin, but not be able to vote on a glider skin.

>

> You have a point ( my intent was to forbid f2p accounts to vote, in order to avoid spam and fake votes as for the weapon contest ).

 

ah, yes that makes sense :)

[Arzurag.7506]

This system would completely negate every excuse Anet could use for overpriced cosmetics.

Count me in.