A Message About the Mount Adoption License

[Wolfheart.7483]

> @"Torgan DeBaku.9534" said:

> > @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > >You’ve requested variety, and this is a way to support variety. Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins.

> >

> > I agree with this part, if they added all 30 skins as unique purchases it wouldn't work very well, so adding them as a random reward from boxes was a good move.

> >

> > > Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin.

> >

> > And this is what got me thinking. How much would the price of individual skins be? Currently you need to pay 400 gems for a chance to get a skin you want out of 30 choices. So if you want one skin you will get it by spending anything between 400 and 12000 gems. The more skins you want, the less you have to pay to get at least one you want, and the more you have to pay to get all of them. But what would the individual skin price be?

>

> Perspective is the key here.

>

> Right now the forged mount costs 2000 gems. That price tag translates to $25.

>

> The "Path of fire" expansion costs $30. PoF gives you five new maps larger than any previous map, five mounts, new armor, new elite skills, new enemies, a ton of new dialogue, new story, new cut scenes and so on.

>

> Now the question is. Do you believe the work that had to be done to create that one forged mount skin was near equal to the work it took ANet to create Path of Fire?

>

> The obvious answer is: of course not.

>

> Which leads to the conclusion that any Gem Store skin price tag is chosen arbitrary by ANet and is in no away correlated to the time it took to create a skin. ANet could have sold that forged mount for 600-800 and probably still make cash out of it. The 2k price tag is only to encourage us to try our luck with the “massive discounted” 30 RNG skin roulette and ANet execs are broadly grinning and rubbing their hands because of all the cash players throw at them without even knowing each skins individual drop chance. You can bet your rear end that the pyro jackal skin has a much lower drop rate then the “default skimmer with 4 dye channels” skin.

>

>

> ANets way out of Mountgate?

>

> Raise the single mount skin price to 600 Gems and remove the RNG so we can pick what we want.

> By this players who already bought skins got their skins earlier and cheaper. And two skins sold under the new pricing amounts to “three skins sold” under the old system. Win / Win. As Anet sells more gems and we can pick the skins we like without any RNG BS attached to it.

>

> But sadly once again corporate greed is blinding the ppl making the decisions so it is unlikely this will happen.

> As a result ANet does not get my money although I am totally prepared to buy 3-5 out of the 30 skins.

> But NOT under RNG conditions!

>

 

People keep comparing the price of the Warhound to PoF. The comparison is pointless.

 

First, PoF's price point was, at least partially, based on the response to the HoT price point.

Second, they absolutely expected to, and surely did, sell far more copies of the *expansion* than a premium mount skin.

 

I think PoF was sold for *less* than what it was worth. I believe it was done partially due to the HoT price backlash and also due to anticipated sales numbers.

 

An item like the Warhound is much more niche in who will purchase it which will lead to a specific price range to produce a profit based on projected sales numbers.

[Rashagar.8349]

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> > @yann.1946 said:

> > I do wonder why people are neglecting the fact that their may be people who enjoy the gamble. I understand it sucks if you gamble and don't get what you want but their should be no reason to not have both systems at the same time. One where you can gamble and the other where you can buy the skins outright.

>

> There's a reason why some people like to gamble:

>

> http://www.pcgamer.com/behind-the-addictive-psychology-and-seductive-art-of-loot-boxes/

 

> Because gamble boxes manipulate a person psychologically and chemically (Dopamine) is why many people object to locking items behind them that you can't get in any other way.

 

Same as why some people like coffee or chocolate, yeah. The substance manipulates them psychologically and chemically.

(Just giving some context as to why those words aren't as sinister as they might appear, and it's all down to how it's being utilised/implemented).

 

Now, understand that I'm not saying everyone should be forced to drink coffee. But, crucially, you aren't being forced to here. You can just choose not to buy it, and wait til the vendor starts selling fruit smoothies. You can complain that the vendor only sold coffee originally when you wanted a fruit smoothie, and wouldn't it be better to offer both simultaneously, and I'd personally agree. But insisting that the vendor never sell coffee again, or demonising the vendor for selling coffee in the first place, or blaming the people who like coffee because they're getting their coffee before you're getting your fruit smoothie, these aren't exactly the right way to go about things. (I'm also not saying that you are personally engaging in these activities, because I don't know your post history by heart). It also doesn't make sense to buy a drink of coffee and then complain that you don't like the taste, because you knew you were buying coffee, it says it right there on the label.

 

In this analogy, I think mount skins are akin to... being in a state of thirst? Which I suppose works since the community does have a powerful thirst for mount skins right now haha!

 

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go picketing places that sell coffee for being manipulative enablers of addicts. They don't even have to specialise in coffee, they just have to have it in stock somewhere.

 

Edit to elaborate:

It's like people taking a moral stance against coffee, the substance.

When they should be taking a moral stance against coffee, the exploitative billion dollar industry.

Because let's face it, Arenanet is as close to fair trade coffee as there is to get. And lumping it under the umbrella of "coffee" and demonising the whole concept of the drink is a) not rational, and b) directly harmful to fair trade coffee while leaving the exploitative billion dollar industry version largely intact.

[Wolfheart.7483]

.> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > @Sykper.6583 said:

> > > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > > > @Sykper.6583 said:

> > > > The real outlier is the Warforged, imo that skin is a bit overvalued at 2k gems, but it's not just a remodel but a rework on the dog with far more changes than any of the skins in the Adoption Licenses.

> > > >

> > > > If we had to say Starbound is worth 800 gems, I would price Warforged about twice that given they had to take animations and build up something that's less like a dog and more like a goat with the horns, details and all. 20 bucks seems fair I don't see it dropping further than that.

> > >

> > > Why? Why does a model change warrant 2.000 Gems all of the sudden?

> > >

> > > Outfits for your characters are exactly that, yet nobody in their right mind would argue that they are worth 2.000 Gems because of it.

> > >

> > > The Warforged skin is ridiclously overpriced, simple as that.

> >

> > I actually said it was overpriced at 2k, 1600 gems would be more suited.

>

> 1600 Gems is also a ridiclous price for it.

>

> The most workload of the mounts was already done (rigging, animating etc) with the expansion pack. Adding a new model on that framework is actually a lot less work than the average player seems to think.

>

> Much, much work goes into a player Outfit (two sexes, multiple races as opposed to a single mount to work with) which is at 700 Gems.

 

It has different sound effects, teleport animation, footfalls, etc. It has a bit more added to it than you seem to think. Arguing what something is *worth* is never an argument that can be won on any side. Everything has different value to different people.

[Kasemdria.7138]

> @"Mike O Brien.4613" said:

 

> * The Adoption License is a large set at 30 skins. We stand by the work our artists put into each skin, but it’s understandable to see this as pushing down the odds of acquiring any one skin, and to worry that we might add more skins to lower the chances further.

 

I admit, the thought of more skins being added, thus lowering the chances at the skin you want was overwhelming. I know my budget threshold for gaming expenses, and I wouldn't be able to keep up. Knowing that this bundle will stay at 30 reduces the pressure immensely.

 

> Here are some of the benefits we had in mind when designing the Mount Adoption License:

>

> * You get a brand-new, unique mount skin every time, for a substantial discount versus an individual purchase price.

> * It uses a progressive mechanic. Every license gives you a new skin to use and increases the odds of acquiring any remaining skins.

> * You’ve requested variety, and this is a way to support variety. Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins. Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin.

 

Insuring that one couldn't get duplicates was a very good thing. If you intended to get all the mounts anyway, there is no way you can lose. Thank you for at least considering that. I still stand by what I said in the mount skin feedback thread:

* I was disappointed in the RNG aspect, but I know I will get over it. Knowing that the bundle will not increase in size and reading the response here from Anet has meant that I feel I can buy a license or two and know that my roll will guarantee me a mount from these 30 with no duplicate.

* 400 gems is a very fair price per mount. I have spent more on items like gliders, and I know these have 3 or 4 dye channels whilst a glider is only seen when gliding.

 

>We won’t change the existing license in a way that would invalidate the investment players have made, but I want to confirm to you that our next planned mount skin releases will focus on individual sales like the Reforged Warhound and bundles like the Spooky Mounts Pack. We will not add any skins to the currently available Adoption License, thus not pushing down the odds of acquiring any one skin in that set.

Understandably, you can't change the current Adoption License. You were clear with what you were selling; people bought knowing what they were getting in to. You can't take back what they may have won/lost (depending on their point of view...).

 

Funny story though: After reading the Anet feedback, I did end up buying an Adoption License, and low and behold, RNG didn't give me what I wanted. I ended up with the Arctic Gerboa (a more flashy mount, which I didn't want). Turns out the dye channels are so versatile that I can make my shiny mount more subtle and "natural" with certain dyes. So after all that, I found that most of the mounts in the bundle I can happily work with if I do get them. I am very happy with my new springer.

[OnyX.9027]

@Mike Obrien **"Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin."**

 

I had to post just to laugh at the particular line, someone could get a mount for minimum coin, but you could also get it for the maximum statistical sum of money and the ONLY winners are the people selling

 

it is worse than the people that Raffle a $50,000 car with 5,000 tickets of $100 each, some one is guaranteed to get the prize for the minimum amount but the person selling is DEFINITELY going to get a ridiculous sum for it

 

but then again after seeing NcSoft quarterly report they are probably trying to cash grab everything they can atm in GW2 as it is 4th in NcSofts Revenue earnings in the quarter they launched PoF too which gave it a 49& income boost, which doesn't exactly bode well for its finances lol

 


 

[Wolfheart.7483]

> @OnyX.9027 said:

> but then again after seeing NcSoft quarterly report they are probably trying to cash grab everything they can atm in GW2 as it is 4th in NcSofts Revenue earnings in the quarter they launched PoF too which gave it a 49& income boost, which doesn't exactly bode well for its finances lol

>

 

That doesn't account for all of PoF sales. PoF spanned from Q3 into Q4. So the graph can not be used to accurately assess PoF's impact on profit.

 

[Forgotten Legend.9281]

the Mount Adoption License in and of itself is actually a really good idea.

~ It's just like the Black Lion Wardrobe UNlock Tickets found in the Black Lion Chests.

 

my suggestion:

~ Mount Adaption LIcense should have been a rare drop in the BLCs just like the Wardrobe unlock tickets

~ AND individual mount skins should have been available for individual purchase at the NON-discounted gem prices

~ individual mount skins could also be rewards for collection type achievements, or event type achievements.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @JustTrogdor.7892 said:

> > @"Fire X.5184" said:

> > yeeeah no. I will say good that you will change your ways (we shall see about that) but at the same time you can't change the system with existing license? Are you kidding me? here I will fix it for you. Make it that we can choose the mounts we want and give the gems back. Don't give a money refund just give the gems back and take away the skins. Then they can choose the skins they want and at the same time they have gems left over. You keep the money and we get the skins we want everyone is happy.

>

> Sound good on the surface but I am fairly sure Anet has stated that it is not easy to remove account unlocks and is on a case by case basis and may even involve rolling an account back. So that won't work.

 

They did exactly that for the flamekissed armor debacle. Notice, that while it seems to be really hard for them to remove a specific unlock from a specific character, they _can_ apparently do a removal of a specific skin from _all_ accounts.

 

So, remove all the 30 mount skin unlocks that were part of adoption box from everyone. Refund gems. Change the box to offer a choice of a specific skin for 400 gems, put it back on gemshop. Those that were fine with the skins they got would be able to buy them back at no loss. Those that _weren't_ fine with the lottery results should be happy as well, as they would be able to either get their gems back, or buy the skins they wanted (instead of the ones they received).

 

> @xarallei.4279 said:

> People demanding or expecting the current mount license to change are unrealistic. Do you REALLY think Anet is going to change the license and basically screw over all the people who already put in the money to unlock all the skins? No, they aren't.

And nobody's asking them. And there are many ways to avoid doing that while also making the rest of the community happy. But Anet's not going to do that, because that's not a priority to them. They'd rather fleece the same community and hope the storm will blow over on its own.

[Torgan DeBaku.9534]

> @Wolfheart.7483 said:

> > @"Torgan DeBaku.9534" said:

> > > @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > > >You’ve requested variety, and this is a way to support variety. Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins.

> > >

> > > I agree with this part, if they added all 30 skins as unique purchases it wouldn't work very well, so adding them as a random reward from boxes was a good move.

> > >

> > > > Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin.

> > >

> > > And this is what got me thinking. How much would the price of individual skins be? Currently you need to pay 400 gems for a chance to get a skin you want out of 30 choices. So if you want one skin you will get it by spending anything between 400 and 12000 gems. The more skins you want, the less you have to pay to get at least one you want, and the more you have to pay to get all of them. But what would the individual skin price be?

> >

> > Perspective is the key here.

> >

> > Right now the forged mount costs 2000 gems. That price tag translates to $25.

> >

> > The "Path of fire" expansion costs $30. PoF gives you five new maps larger than any previous map, five mounts, new armor, new elite skills, new enemies, a ton of new dialogue, new story, new cut scenes and so on.

> >

> > Now the question is. Do you believe the work that had to be done to create that one forged mount skin was near equal to the work it took ANet to create Path of Fire?

> >

> > The obvious answer is: of course not.

> >

> > Which leads to the conclusion that any Gem Store skin price tag is chosen arbitrary by ANet and is in no away correlated to the time it took to create a skin. ANet could have sold that forged mount for 600-800 and probably still make cash out of it. The 2k price tag is only to encourage us to try our luck with the “massive discounted” 30 RNG skin roulette and ANet execs are broadly grinning and rubbing their hands because of all the cash players throw at them without even knowing each skins individual drop chance. You can bet your rear end that the pyro jackal skin has a much lower drop rate then the “default skimmer with 4 dye channels” skin.

> >

> >

> > ANets way out of Mountgate?

> >

> > Raise the single mount skin price to 600 Gems and remove the RNG so we can pick what we want.

> > By this players who already bought skins got their skins earlier and cheaper. And two skins sold under the new pricing amounts to “three skins sold” under the old system. Win / Win. As Anet sells more gems and we can pick the skins we like without any RNG BS attached to it.

> >

> > But sadly once again corporate greed is blinding the ppl making the decisions so it is unlikely this will happen.

> > As a result ANet does not get my money although I am totally prepared to buy 3-5 out of the 30 skins.

> > But NOT under RNG conditions!

> >

>

> People keep comparing the price of the Warhound to PoF. The comparison is pointless.

>

> First, PoF's price point was, at least partially, based on the response to the HoT price point.

> Second, they absolutely expected to, and surely did, sell far more copies of the *expansion* than a premium mount skin.

>

> I think PoF was sold for *less* than what it was worth. I believe it was done partially due to the HoT price backlash and also due to anticipated sales numbers.

>

> An item like the Warhound is much more niche in who will purchase it which will lead to a specific price range to produce a profit based on projected sales numbers.

 

The comparison was not pointless.

 

For PoF ANet looked at what it cost them to create PoF – salaries to the Devs, up keeping of their offices and servers and so on - and calculated a reasonable, yet profitable price tag which amounted to $29,99. The forged mount is close to that amount of money. So using simple logic apparently - and MO hinted at this with his remark about how they “stand by the work our artists put into each skin”- to ANet creating that forged mount was up at the level of cost as creating the entire PoF expansion.

 

Of course that is rubbish. MO knows it is. We know it is. There is no sane reason why one mount should costs nearly as much as the current expansion. And the whole point why I brought that comparison up was - to show that ANet picks skin prices arbitrarily without any relation to what it actually cost them to create that particular skin. But because they can set the price to whatever they want. They can set the 30 skins to 600, to 800 to 1000 and still claim it’s a discount. Yea compared to the 2000 gem skins it is a discount.

 

Which brings us back to the forged skin.

 

The only reason why the forged mount is set to 2000 gems is to create a drastic price contrast to the “substantial discount” of the 400 Gems RNG rigged mount skins of the adoption passes. To make us gamble the RNG slot machine in hopes we get one of the cool skins. And they prey on us to roll as many RNGs as we need to get that one skin we like the most. Maximum profit for them – milking us of every copper possible. There is no other reason. See that 2k mount skin? Too expensive for you? No problem. Look how nice we are. Over there are 30 other Mounts skins! Some really cool. They sparkle and are shiny! You get a new random one for only 400 Gems. Go catch em all! – now go. Play RNG roulette!!!

 

[CETheLucid.3964]

200 gems for the random license.

400 gems for the specific skin you want from the stable.

Everyone would have been happy.

[Sykper.6583]

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> 1600 Gems is also a ridiclous price for it.

>

> The most workload of the mounts was already done (rigging, animating etc) with the expansion pack. Adding a new model on that framework is actually a lot less work than the average player seems to think.

>

> Much, much work goes into a player Outfit (two sexes, multiple races as opposed to a single mount to work with) which is at 700 Gems.

 

Nope, it's the other way around. Most of the outfits in question already have the scaling figured out for things like Shoulderpads being bigger on Norns, often to the point where the quality is diminished with 'stretched' textures. Don't even get me started on how the quality of Charr outfits.

 

Mounts on the other hand, don't have clipping or any stretched detail issues. This is a bit depressing to consider that they would go the extra mile to make mounts look good on the races but not the same amount of effort into outfits. This means that they are recreating things like the Warforged 5 times over for the different races, rather than using the current outfit engine.

 

Edit: Get a couple of your friends with the same outfits on different races together, get the same mounts out. Notice specifically on Norn, Charr and even Asura that the outfits might have stretched features or some clipping in the case of Charr. Now get on the same mounts, notice the mounts don't have the same issues with the skin looking like it has stretched pixels.

[Sykper.6583]

> @CETheLucid.3964 said:

> 200 gems for the random license.

> 400 gems for the specific skin you want from the stable.

> Everyone would have been happy.

 

Well except for us in the future when Arenanet ends GW2 after running business losses due to undercutting their work immensely.

[GreyWolf.8670]

> @Sykper.6583 said:

> > @CETheLucid.3964 said:

> > 200 gems for the random license.

> > 400 gems for the specific skin you want from the stable.

> > Everyone would have been happy.

>

> Well except for us in the future when Arenanet ends GW2 after running business losses due to undercutting their work immensely.

 

Don't do bad work that nobody wants and that won't happen.

[troops.8276]

> @Sykper.6583 said:

> > @CETheLucid.3964 said:

> > 200 gems for the random license.

> > 400 gems for the specific skin you want from the stable.

> > Everyone would have been happy.

>

> Well except for us in the future when Arenanet ends GW2 after running business losses due to undercutting their work immensely.

 

How do you know? There's a lot of peoples who's lives would be improved by not playing this or any other massive compulsion driven time sink video game.

 

And when they inevitably do turn the servers of it wont be because of undercutting their services.

[Electro.4173]

> @Sykper.6583 said:

> > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > 1600 Gems is also a ridiclous price for it.

> >

> > The most workload of the mounts was already done (rigging, animating etc) with the expansion pack. Adding a new model on that framework is actually a lot less work than the average player seems to think.

> >

> > Much, much work goes into a player Outfit (two sexes, multiple races as opposed to a single mount to work with) which is at 700 Gems.

>

> Nope, it's the other way around. Most of the outfits in question already have the scaling figured out for things like Shoulderpads being bigger on Norns, often to the point where the quality is diminished with 'stretched' textures. Don't even get me started on how the quality of Charr outfits.

>

> Mounts on the other hand, don't have clipping or any stretched detail issues. This is a bit depressing to consider that they would go the extra mile to make mounts look good on the races but not the same amount of effort into outfits. This means that they are recreating things like the Warforged 5 times over for the different races, rather than using the current outfit engine.

>

> Edit: Get a couple of your friends with the same outfits on different races together, get the same mounts out. Notice specifically on Norn, Charr and even Asura that the outfits might have stretched features or some clipping in the case of Charr. Now get on the same mounts, notice the mounts don't have the same issues with the skin looking like it has stretched pixels.

 

I'm not really going to get into the specifics of cost efficiency, however models are super easy to scale as long as they're 100% identical. The reason armors end up stretched and ugly is because different races have different proportions, so you can't just scale them 1-to-1. In the case of Norn shoulders, for instance, Norn have larger arms, chests, and shoulders proportionally than the default human model, so you can't just slap the human-sized shoulders there, you need to proportionally scale them to fit the norn arms and shoulders which means the end up stretched and oversized. The mounts are all identical, all they need to do is scale them, most likely they create the "biggest" one and then just scale them down for smaller races.

 

That's why weapons never suffer from any sort of stretching ugliness either, its just a 1-to-1 scaling, make it bigger for bigger races and smaller for smaller races. With armor, certain parts and sections need to be widened more to account for different body structures, which leads to the texture issues, oversized pieces, ect.

[Wolfheart.7483]

> @"Torgan DeBaku.9534" said:

> > @Wolfheart.7483 said:

> > > @"Torgan DeBaku.9534" said:

> > > > @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > > > >You’ve requested variety, and this is a way to support variety. Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins.

> > > >

> > > > I agree with this part, if they added all 30 skins as unique purchases it wouldn't work very well, so adding them as a random reward from boxes was a good move.

> > > >

> > > > > Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin.

> > > >

> > > > And this is what got me thinking. How much would the price of individual skins be? Currently you need to pay 400 gems for a chance to get a skin you want out of 30 choices. So if you want one skin you will get it by spending anything between 400 and 12000 gems. The more skins you want, the less you have to pay to get at least one you want, and the more you have to pay to get all of them. But what would the individual skin price be?

> > >

> > > Perspective is the key here.

> > >

> > > Right now the forged mount costs 2000 gems. That price tag translates to $25.

> > >

> > > The "Path of fire" expansion costs $30. PoF gives you five new maps larger than any previous map, five mounts, new armor, new elite skills, new enemies, a ton of new dialogue, new story, new cut scenes and so on.

> > >

> > > Now the question is. Do you believe the work that had to be done to create that one forged mount skin was near equal to the work it took ANet to create Path of Fire?

> > >

> > > The obvious answer is: of course not.

> > >

> > > Which leads to the conclusion that any Gem Store skin price tag is chosen arbitrary by ANet and is in no away correlated to the time it took to create a skin. ANet could have sold that forged mount for 600-800 and probably still make cash out of it. The 2k price tag is only to encourage us to try our luck with the “massive discounted” 30 RNG skin roulette and ANet execs are broadly grinning and rubbing their hands because of all the cash players throw at them without even knowing each skins individual drop chance. You can bet your rear end that the pyro jackal skin has a much lower drop rate then the “default skimmer with 4 dye channels” skin.

> > >

> > >

> > > ANets way out of Mountgate?

> > >

> > > Raise the single mount skin price to 600 Gems and remove the RNG so we can pick what we want.

> > > By this players who already bought skins got their skins earlier and cheaper. And two skins sold under the new pricing amounts to “three skins sold” under the old system. Win / Win. As Anet sells more gems and we can pick the skins we like without any RNG BS attached to it.

> > >

> > > But sadly once again corporate greed is blinding the ppl making the decisions so it is unlikely this will happen.

> > > As a result ANet does not get my money although I am totally prepared to buy 3-5 out of the 30 skins.

> > > But NOT under RNG conditions!

> > >

> >

> > People keep comparing the price of the Warhound to PoF. The comparison is pointless.

> >

> > First, PoF's price point was, at least partially, based on the response to the HoT price point.

> > Second, they absolutely expected to, and surely did, sell far more copies of the *expansion* than a premium mount skin.

> >

> > I think PoF was sold for *less* than what it was worth. I believe it was done partially due to the HoT price backlash and also due to anticipated sales numbers.

> >

> > An item like the Warhound is much more niche in who will purchase it which will lead to a specific price range to produce a profit based on projected sales numbers.

>

> The comparison was not pointless.

>

> For PoF ANet looked at what it cost them to create PoF – salaries to the Devs, up keeping of their offices and servers and so on - and calculated a reasonable, yet profitable price tag which amounted to $29,99. The forged mount is close to that amount of money. So using simple logic apparently - and MO hinted at this with his remark about how they “stand by the work our artists put into each skin”- to ANet creating that forged mount was up at the level of cost as creating the entire PoF expansion.

>

> Of course that is rubbish. MO knows it is. We know it is. There is no sane reason why one mount should costs nearly as much as the current expansion. And the whole point why I brought that comparison up was - to show that ANet picks skin prices arbitrarily without any relation to what it actually cost them to create that particular skin. But because they can set the price to whatever they want. They can set the 30 skins to 600, to 800 to 1000 and still claim it’s a discount. Yea compared to the 2000 gem skins it is a discount.

>

> Which brings us back to the forged skin.

>

> The only reason why the forged mount is set to 2000 gems is to create a drastic price contrast to the “substantial discount” of the 400 Gems RNG rigged mount skins of the adoption passes. To make us gamble the RNG slot machine in hopes we get one of the cool skins. And they prey on us to roll as many RNGs as we need to get that one skin we like the most. Maximum profit for them – milking us of every copper possible. There is no other reason. See that 2k mount skin? Too expensive for you? No problem. Look how nice we are. Over there are 30 other Mounts skins! Some really cool. They sparkle and are shiny! You get a new random one for only 400 Gems. Go catch em all! – now go. Play RNG roulette!!!

>

 

I think you're still overlooking the idea of *quantity* of sales. The $30 price tag on PoF vs the $25 price tag on the mount does not imply that the Warhound took almost as much to make as PoF. It means based on how many they projected to sell, that was the price point they determined to cover the cost of making it and make a profit. The number of units sold of PoF would be *much* higher than the Warhound. So as the number of units sold goes up, the price can come *down*. If they projected lower sales for PoF than they did, they probably would've sold it at a higher price point to balance that out.

 

[Wolfheart.7483]

> @GreyWolf.8670 said:

> > @Sykper.6583 said:

> > > @CETheLucid.3964 said:

> > > 200 gems for the random license.

> > > 400 gems for the specific skin you want from the stable.

> > > Everyone would have been happy.

> >

> > Well except for us in the future when Arenanet ends GW2 after running business losses due to undercutting their work immensely.

>

> Don't do bad work that nobody wants and that won't happen.

 

Except there are plenty of people that want their work as evidence by all the people who have bought it. So I suppose that means many people don't consider it bad work.

[Oglaf.1074]

There is no point in trying to debate the worth or value of these skins for you and me. We were never the intended demographic for them. Their value or worth to us was never taken into consideration. These items are clearly targeted towards the "whales" - a small minority of players.

 

That is how freemium economies work. Google it.

[NotASmurf.1725]

> @aliciamarianne.1725 said:

> DO NOT BACK DOWN, DO NOT LET THIS THREAD DIE.

> They need to understand this was an error and correct it.

> I looked moments ago and there are 10-11 skin I DO want. I'll buy 2 20 packs to get them, but I WILL NOT BUY 2 20 PACKS FOR A **CHANCE** TO GET THEM.

> #RIOT

 

It's Sunday, Anet doesn't read this. Why do you think they released this "apology" on Friday afternoon? So the community can vent its rage while they peace out for the weekend and hopefully everything goes back to normal by Monday.

 

If you want to have some impact rest till tomorrow.

[LadyRhi.3195]

Thank you not only for the response itself, but taking the time to gather the community's feedback and addressing it in a considered way. I am not personally upset about the approach taken, though the price registered as out of proportion. I still made my own purchase and love the beautiful skins your artists have developed. However, the genuine rage that has come out of the last week -- rather out of proportion as well -- deserved attention and you've delivered. Thank you!

 

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Wolfheart.7483 said:

> It has different sound effects, teleport animation, footfalls, etc. It has a bit more added to it than you seem to think. Arguing what something is *worth* is never an argument that can be won on any side. Everything has different value to different people.

 

That is interesting. You can't get any of that out of the preview window. For something like this in future, there are two things they might want to do, either A: produce a very simple "trailer" for it, showing off some of those features, just like thirty seconds of someone running around on it, or B: figure out a way to make a "temporary mount skin," one that you can acquire one time for free that would last like 15 minutes or so, and would let you experience the new Mount without having to commit $25 to it. Personally I still doubt I'd buy *this* mount, because the aesthetic just isn't my style, but I would in theory be willing to spend that much if they delivered a style that really appealed to me and had that much depth to it.

[Oglaf.1074]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Wolfheart.7483 said:

> > It has different sound effects, teleport animation, footfalls, etc. It has a bit more added to it than you seem to think. Arguing what something is *worth* is never an argument that can be won on any side. Everything has different value to different people.

>

> That is interesting. You can't get any of that out of the preview window. For something like this in future, there are two things they might want to do, either A: produce a very simple "trailer" for it, showing off some of those features, just like thirty seconds of someone running around on it, or B: figure out a way to make a "temporary mount skin," one that you can acquire one time for free that would last like 15 minutes or so, and would let you experience the new Mount without having to commit $25 to it. Personally I still doubt I'd buy *this* mount, because the aesthetic just isn't my style, but I would in theory be willing to spend that much if they delivered a style that really appealed to me and had that much depth to it.

 

Indeed. That might warrant a higher price then.

 

I'd still disagree with the current pricing though, lol.

[Noa.7490]

So, does this mean that the loot box skins are locked and won't be available as individual purchase?

[Torgan DeBaku.9534]

> @Wolfheart.7483 said:

> > @"Torgan DeBaku.9534" said:

> > > @Wolfheart.7483 said:

> > > > @"Torgan DeBaku.9534" said:

> > > > > @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > > > > >You’ve requested variety, and this is a way to support variety. Individual sale is a mechanic that works with a few, flashy skins.

> > > > >

> > > > > I agree with this part, if they added all 30 skins as unique purchases it wouldn't work very well, so adding them as a random reward from boxes was a good move.

> > > > >

> > > > > > Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin.

> > > > >

> > > > > And this is what got me thinking. How much would the price of individual skins be? Currently you need to pay 400 gems for a chance to get a skin you want out of 30 choices. So if you want one skin you will get it by spending anything between 400 and 12000 gems. The more skins you want, the less you have to pay to get at least one you want, and the more you have to pay to get all of them. But what would the individual skin price be?

> > > >

> > > > Perspective is the key here.

> > > >

> > > > Right now the forged mount costs 2000 gems. That price tag translates to $25.

> > > >

> > > > The "Path of fire" expansion costs $30. PoF gives you five new maps larger than any previous map, five mounts, new armor, new elite skills, new enemies, a ton of new dialogue, new story, new cut scenes and so on.

> > > >

> > > > Now the question is. Do you believe the work that had to be done to create that one forged mount skin was near equal to the work it took ANet to create Path of Fire?

> > > >

> > > > The obvious answer is: of course not.

> > > >

> > > > Which leads to the conclusion that any Gem Store skin price tag is chosen arbitrary by ANet and is in no away correlated to the time it took to create a skin. ANet could have sold that forged mount for 600-800 and probably still make cash out of it. The 2k price tag is only to encourage us to try our luck with the “massive discounted” 30 RNG skin roulette and ANet execs are broadly grinning and rubbing their hands because of all the cash players throw at them without even knowing each skins individual drop chance. You can bet your rear end that the pyro jackal skin has a much lower drop rate then the “default skimmer with 4 dye channels” skin.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ANets way out of Mountgate?

> > > >

> > > > Raise the single mount skin price to 600 Gems and remove the RNG so we can pick what we want.

> > > > By this players who already bought skins got their skins earlier and cheaper. And two skins sold under the new pricing amounts to “three skins sold” under the old system. Win / Win. As Anet sells more gems and we can pick the skins we like without any RNG BS attached to it.

> > > >

> > > > But sadly once again corporate greed is blinding the ppl making the decisions so it is unlikely this will happen.

> > > > As a result ANet does not get my money although I am totally prepared to buy 3-5 out of the 30 skins.

> > > > But NOT under RNG conditions!

> > > >

> > >

> > > People keep comparing the price of the Warhound to PoF. The comparison is pointless.

> > >

> > > First, PoF's price point was, at least partially, based on the response to the HoT price point.

> > > Second, they absolutely expected to, and surely did, sell far more copies of the *expansion* than a premium mount skin.

> > >

> > > I think PoF was sold for *less* than what it was worth. I believe it was done partially due to the HoT price backlash and also due to anticipated sales numbers.

> > >

> > > An item like the Warhound is much more niche in who will purchase it which will lead to a specific price range to produce a profit based on projected sales numbers.

> >

> > The comparison was not pointless.

> >

> > For PoF ANet looked at what it cost them to create PoF – salaries to the Devs, up keeping of their offices and servers and so on - and calculated a reasonable, yet profitable price tag which amounted to $29,99. The forged mount is close to that amount of money. So using simple logic apparently - and MO hinted at this with his remark about how they “stand by the work our artists put into each skin”- to ANet creating that forged mount was up at the level of cost as creating the entire PoF expansion.

> >

> > Of course that is rubbish. MO knows it is. We know it is. There is no sane reason why one mount should costs nearly as much as the current expansion. And the whole point why I brought that comparison up was - to show that ANet picks skin prices arbitrarily without any relation to what it actually cost them to create that particular skin. But because they can set the price to whatever they want. They can set the 30 skins to 600, to 800 to 1000 and still claim it’s a discount. Yea compared to the 2000 gem skins it is a discount.

> >

> > Which brings us back to the forged skin.

> >

> > The only reason why the forged mount is set to 2000 gems is to create a drastic price contrast to the “substantial discount” of the 400 Gems RNG rigged mount skins of the adoption passes. To make us gamble the RNG slot machine in hopes we get one of the cool skins. And they prey on us to roll as many RNGs as we need to get that one skin we like the most. Maximum profit for them – milking us of every copper possible. There is no other reason. See that 2k mount skin? Too expensive for you? No problem. Look how nice we are. Over there are 30 other Mounts skins! Some really cool. They sparkle and are shiny! You get a new random one for only 400 Gems. Go catch em all! – now go. Play RNG roulette!!!

> >

>

> I think you're still overlooking the idea of *quantity* of sales. The $30 price tag on PoF vs the $25 price tag on the mount does not imply that the Warhound took almost as much to make as PoF. It means based on how many they projected to sell, that was the price point they determined to cover the cost of making it and make a profit. The number of units sold of PoF would be *much* higher than the Warhound. So as the number of units sold goes up, the price can come *down*. If they projected lower sales for PoF than they did, they probably would've sold it at a higher price point to balance that out.

>

 

My point – and reason for using the “forged almost as expensive as PoF” example was - the 2k gem mount is there to point towards the equally shiny but chea .. erm “substantial discounted“ .. mount skins in the 30 Skin RNG roulette! The forged skin serves as PR counterpoint. Offer something expensive and cheap at the same time that caters to the same audience to get ppl to look at the cheap stuff. The earnings won’t come from the expensive thing, but the cheap one. Add RNG to it and prey on ppl who will try and try to get the one skin they want to maximize profit. The way ANet implemented those new mount skins with its RNG lootbox system was NOT with our benefit in mind, even though MO tries to sell it as such - but solely theirs. Squeez every dime out of your customers you can get, even if you have to resort to shady Business practices such as lootbo – erm “grab bags”. The only nice thing Anet did her - probabbly to soften the RNG blow - was not having duplicates in place.

 

 

[Kichwas.7152]

> @OnyX.9027 said:

> @Mike Obrien **"Using a grab bag mechanic gives us leeway to create skins to suit a wide range of player tastes while offering a lower price per skin."**

>

>

> 

>

 

WTF happened to Lineage 1 to tank down so hard there?

 

Note that GW2 is the only game with an up-tick after relative stability in all of that. Lineage 1 had a small uptick too - but it follows a massive crash. Mobile is a category... that we'd need a breakdown for. But something dramatic just happened there...

 

To me the charts read as "all declining, but GW2 and Hentai and Soul are the most stable...

 

But I'm really curious about what happened with Lineage there. Did it's players finally realize their playing an MMO older than most nations?