Tight release schedule expense driving RNG lootboxes?

[Tekoneiric.6817]

I wonder if some of the behind the scene forces driving RNG Lootboxes is their tight release schedule. They pushed hard to get LWS3 out including a new map on every single chapter and then released PoF right on heel of LWS3. Presumably they will be releasing LWS4 soon on the same tight release schedule with new maps per chapter. I'm sure the expense is high on tighter schedules. Maybe they should look at ways to cut costs on Living World by tying a reworking of various core Tyria maps to tie into the odd chapter or two instead of doing a new map on each chapter.

 

I've always though they failed to utilize raiding properly. They could use raids as a way to introduce new maps by having raid teams take down really strong bosses and lay down waypoints plus open them up for vendors. After a time the entry point for the raid instance could be moved to the hub and the open world portals added to link the for PvE access. There could basically be two copies of the same map but one with high end raid content/rewards and the other set after the raid timeline wise with PvE content where normal champs and metas happen. They would save money on the map development.

[Kiza.5630]

> @Tekoneiric.6817 said:

> Maybe they should look at ways to cut costs on Living World by tying a reworking of various core Tyria maps to tie into the odd chapter or two instead of doing a new map on each chapter.

 

How does that cut costs? You can only cut costs by removing people from the teams or paying them less. Which hopefully won't happen. Otherwise monthly expenses are fixed. And I highly doubt they bought external resources.

 

But I do agree on "reusing" some of the old stuff. I always hoped myself that some of the episodes could again add stuff to existing maps they play in. You need to be careful not to remove things others enjoy, but a slight rework of some maps to incorporate new content would be nice. Like new event chains, some large scale stuff, new NPCs and story to follow. I'd find that better than adding a brand new map for **every** episode. Sure I enjoyed them a lot, but at one point you'll have 20+ of such maps.

[Tekoneiric.6817]

> @Kiza.5630 said:

 

> How does that cut costs? You can only cut costs by removing people from the teams or paying them less. Which hopefully won't happen. Otherwise monthly expenses are fixed. And I highly doubt they bought external resources.

 

Deadlines often times come with overtime and sometimes temporary personnel.

[WARIORSCHARGEING.2637]

i always find it very funny these so called people that try to push raids into pve open world . never get the idea no matter how you try to re draw the pictures to them they never get it that is this..

 

raids by them self's not many people do them and do not want them at all in pve . no way shape or form . but yet every time i read these posts asking for it. just blows my mind they still not gotten it.

 

same goes for meta in pve as well same story both of these things hurt and damage the pve maps . with many times forcing others that do not want that at all in pve maps to leave the maps . . for these reasons A. meta world bosses make the whole map much more laggy when they happen . with bad optimization not helping at all

 

B. meta events in pve world maps do the same problems but for shorter time but still bring the same problems to the pve maps as the pve raid maps you are suggesting would do .

 

behind the scene forces is not what is at all driving RNG Lootboxes but what is which is 2 things the game market and MO . as he is the boss and makes all the calls in this game.

 

high end raid content is not what is #bestforBusiness when it comes to pve. it just will be as bad as the rng loot boxes currently are. in the end it will not end well for no one. and bring no befits at all to no one.

 

no to #meta no to #pveraids

[Chadramar.8156]

> @Tekoneiric.6817 said:

> I've always though they failed to utilize raiding properly. They could use raids as a way to introduce new maps by having raid teams take down really strong bosses and lay down waypoints plus open them up for vendors.

 

No. I do NOT want raiding to limit or otherwise interfere with the rest of the game in any way, shape or form. That includes story elements -- it'd be complete and utter BS to, say, resolve the old _personal story_ mystery of Malyck's tree in a raid, as I have seen suggested repeatedly. Raiding should remain a tiny, entirely optional niche with no impact on anything else. Why? Because it's designed to be exclusive, the developers have said that it has to be that way and that they have no desire to make it more accessible via an easier difficulty mode, and a vocal portion of raid players are VERY VERY invested in raids staying exclusive or becoming even moreso. They should _never_ get to control access to other elements of the game.

 

The story and open world aspects of the game need to be unconditionally available to _everyone_.

[nottsgman.8206]

if a tight schedule is what brought out lootboxes, don't you think we'd have seen them back when the release schedule for living world was every 2 weeks?

[Randulf.7614]

> @WARIORSCHARGEING.2637 said:

> i always find it very funny these so called people that try to push raids into pve open world . never get the idea no matter how you try to re draw the pictures to them they never get it that is this..

>

> raids by them self's not many people do them and do not want them at all in pve . no way shape or form . but yet every time i read these posts asking for it. just blows my mind they still not gotten it.

>

> same goes for meta in pve as well same story both of these things hurt and damage the pve maps . with many times forcing others that do not want that at all in pve maps to leave the maps . . for these reasons A. meta world bosses make the whole map much more laggy when they happen . with bad optimization not helping at all

>

> B. meta events in pve world maps do the same problems but for shorter time but still bring the same problems to the pve maps as the pve raid maps you are suggesting would do .

>

> behind the scene forces is not what is at all driving RNG Lootboxes but what is which is 2 things the game market and MO . as he is the boss and makes all the calls in this game.

>

> high end raid content is not what is #bestforBusiness when it comes to pve. it just will be as bad as the rng loot boxes currently are. in the end it will not end well for no one. and bring no befits at all to no one.

>

> no to #meta no to #pveraids

 

As a non-raider I disagree with the conclusion here. I am well aware raiding is generally a minority activity (although we have no official stats to prove/disprove this), however an MMO needs to well balanced with high and casual end content. Not having raids or at least some form of elite instanced content just limits the audience you can attract. A successful MMO needs to cater to a wide audience as well as keeping a strong core product.

 

As for metas, well HoT, Silverwastes and Core maps showed they can be highly successful. The problem can be when they are overdone or overtuned. HoT had some great metas, but didn't really focus enough outside of those. It needed meta maps and non-meta maps. PoF has gone the complete opposite direction. I understand the bounty system is their attempt to replace it using a system which is all about player driven timers, but they lack the rewards traditional metas give so aren't successfully filling that role (yet - since I suspect a PoF tweak update is in the works)

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

I didn't get the sense the OP was suggesting open-world Raids, but to just save resources by using the same maps, sans the Raid content, for open world Living World stories.

 

Lol, calm.

[Tekoneiric.6817]

> @WARIORSCHARGEING.2637 said:

> i always find it very funny these so called people that try to push raids into pve open world . never get the idea no matter how you try to re draw the pictures to them they never get it that is this..

>

> raids by them self's not many people do them and do not want them at all in pve . no way shape or form . but yet every time i read these posts asking for it. just blows my mind they still not gotten it.

>

> same goes for meta in pve as well same story both of these things hurt and damage the pve maps . with many times forcing others that do not want that at all in pve maps to leave the maps . . for these reasons A. meta world bosses make the whole map much more laggy when they happen . with bad optimization not helping at all

>

> B. meta events in pve world maps do the same problems but for shorter time but still bring the same problems to the pve maps as the pve raid maps you are suggesting would do .

>

> behind the scene forces is not what is at all driving RNG Lootboxes but what is which is 2 things the game market and MO . as he is the boss and makes all the calls in this game.

>

> high end raid content is not what is #bestforBusiness when it comes to pve. it just will be as bad as the rng loot boxes currently are. in the end it will not end well for no one. and bring no befits at all to no one.

>

> no to #meta no to #pveraids

 

"so called people"? There is no need to be demeaning.

 

You totally miss the point of what I'm saying. Raids would still be separate from PvE. They could share a map layout but raid content and rewards would stay with the raid instance and accessible via the aerodrome. The raid story would have a sub-plot of making way for a team to establish waypoints and make encampments. Example: in the maps where white mantle were established in a map the raid team go through the same raid story plot but also make way for Pact forces to establish waypoints and make encampments. It would put the raid players in the role of expeditionary force to soften up the enemy strongholds. In PvE versions of the maps NPCs would brag about the daring strike forces that cleared the way for them.

 

If they did it this way they could push out way more raid content because they wouldn't have to build one-off maps for raids. Every other Living World map could be a raid map which could give the raid players an advance look at them. They could release the raid access to the map weeks ahead of any Living World episode release allowing raiders to get exclusive access to untamed maps for a few weeks.

 

[WARIORSCHARGEING.2637]

> @Randulf.7614 said:

> > @WARIORSCHARGEING.2637 said:

> > i always find it very funny these so called people that try to push raids into pve open world . never get the idea no matter how you try to re draw the pictures to them they never get it that is this..

> >

> > raids by them self's not many people do them and do not want them at all in pve . no way shape or form . but yet every time i read these posts asking for it. just blows my mind they still not gotten it.

> >

> > same goes for meta in pve as well same story both of these things hurt and damage the pve maps . with many times forcing others that do not want that at all in pve maps to leave the maps . . for these reasons A. meta world bosses make the whole map much more laggy when they happen . with bad optimization not helping at all

> >

> > B. meta events in pve world maps do the same problems but for shorter time but still bring the same problems to the pve maps as the pve raid maps you are suggesting would do .

> >

> > behind the scene forces is not what is at all driving RNG Lootboxes but what is which is 2 things the game market and MO . as he is the boss and makes all the calls in this game.

> >

> > high end raid content is not what is #bestforBusiness when it comes to pve. it just will be as bad as the rng loot boxes currently are. in the end it will not end well for no one. and bring no befits at all to no one.

> >

> > no to #meta no to #pveraids

>

> As a non-raider I disagree with the conclusion here. I am well aware raiding is generally a minority activity (although we have no official stats to prove/disprove this), however an MMO needs to well balanced with high and casual end content. Not having raids or at least some form of elite instanced content just limits the audience you can attract. A successful MMO needs to cater to a wide audience as well as keeping a strong core product.

>

> As for metas, well HoT, Silverwastes and Core maps showed they can be highly successful. The problem can be when they are overdone or overtuned. HoT had some great metas, but didn't really focus enough outside of those. It needed meta maps and non-meta maps. PoF has gone the complete opposite direction. I understand the bounty system is their attempt to replace it using a system which is all about player driven timers, but they lack the rewards traditional metas give so aren't successfully filling that role (yet - since I suspect a PoF tweak update is in the works)

 

as a non raider as well too i have to agree with you on the no numbers no proof game. they never been able to come up with a real number that says how many of these their are and how often these said small group of people do this raiding stuff . . maybe if they had the mind set to do so they maybe could even prove them selfs but i honestly can not see it at all.

 

ok far as sliver wasted goes fine to have them maps for that and thos that wish to do it. but far as hot goes well it just was not good at all got really burned on that one.

 

should they put meta into pof that will be the end more so if they add more RNG stuff to it . pof was to be more like guild wars . on that point they got very close but they did not fully hit it or push it over the top. like they could have .but still pof is still a good reminder of guild wars itself .

[WARIORSCHARGEING.2637]

> @Tekoneiric.6817 said:

> > @WARIORSCHARGEING.2637 said:

> > i always find it very funny these so called people that try to push raids into pve open world . never get the idea no matter how you try to re draw the pictures to them they never get it that is this..

> >

> > raids by them self's not many people do them and do not want them at all in pve . no way shape or form . but yet every time i read these posts asking for it. just blows my mind they still not gotten it.

> >

> > same goes for meta in pve as well same story both of these things hurt and damage the pve maps . with many times forcing others that do not want that at all in pve maps to leave the maps . . for these reasons A. meta world bosses make the whole map much more laggy when they happen . with bad optimization not helping at all

> >

> > B. meta events in pve world maps do the same problems but for shorter time but still bring the same problems to the pve maps as the pve raid maps you are suggesting would do .

> >

> > behind the scene forces is not what is at all driving RNG Lootboxes but what is which is 2 things the game market and MO . as he is the boss and makes all the calls in this game.

> >

> > high end raid content is not what is #bestforBusiness when it comes to pve. it just will be as bad as the rng loot boxes currently are. in the end it will not end well for no one. and bring no befits at all to no one.

> >

> > no to #meta no to #pveraids

>

> "so called people"? There is no need to be demeaning.

>

> You totally miss the point of what I'm saying. Raids would still be separate from PvE. They could share a map layout but raid content and rewards would stay with the raid instance and accessible via the aerodrome. The raid story would have a sub-plot of making way for a team to establish waypoints and make encampments. Example: in the maps where white mantle were established in a map the raid team go through the same raid story plot but also make way for Pact forces to establish waypoints and make encampments. It would put the raid players in the role of expeditionary force to soften up the enemy strongholds. In PvE versions of the maps NPCs would brag about the daring strike forces that cleared the way for them.

>

> If they did it this way they could push out way more raid content because they wouldn't have to build one-off maps for raids. Every other Living World map could be a raid map which could give the raid players an advance look at them. They could release the raid access to the map weeks ahead of any Living World episode release allowing raiders to get exclusive access to untamed maps for a few weeks.

>

 

 

that is not even what i said or impaled at all even . not even sure how you came up with that out of wacked baked idea . maybe you should have said that differently in regards to raids maybe ????

 

still this is a very bad bad idea and will not set well with the player base at all. not only that if that was done with living story you can just call it now that living story is dead and not useable any more at all . as a lot of players will no longer do living story if that is put into living story and the game . sorry but their is no place or president for it living story at all. that is like tossing out the baby with the bath water i am sure if their was a POLL even that POLL would prove that very clearly

 

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @nottsgman.8206 said:

> if a tight schedule is what brought out lootboxes, don't you think we'd have seen them back when the release schedule for living world was every 2 weeks?

 

How much larger was the pool of gem store shoppers that long ago? We know, by looking at old NCSoft quarterly reports that revenue was higher back then. Then there's the question as to whether the people who managed gem store marketing back then are the same people doing it now.

[nottsgman.8206]

> @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

> > @nottsgman.8206 said:

> > if a tight schedule is what brought out lootboxes, don't you think we'd have seen them back when the release schedule for living world was every 2 weeks?

>

> How much larger was the pool of gem store shoppers that long ago? We know, by looking at old NCSoft quarterly reports that revenue was higher back then. Then there's the question as to whether the people who managed gem store marketing back then are the same people doing it now.

 

it was just a question to ponder. an outside thought. I don't have the answers, and wondered if anyone had any insight into why we wouldn't see them when the schedule was 2 weeks and yet we do now. I know things change, and perhaps it is the reason why we're seeing them now, and not before.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @Tekoneiric.6817 said:

> I wonder if some of the behind the scene forces driving RNG Lootboxes is their tight release schedule.

 

Their release schedule isn't all that tight; it's a far cry for the schedule maintained during most of the game's first year. Why didn't we see them then? Lots of reasons: they didn't offer hardly anything in the gemshop for ages; the practice wasn't as common in the industry; and ANet was making plenty of money in sales of the game. In the years since, they've sold fewer games than stockholders expected and earned more from the gem shop than predicted. So of course they've been looking for ways to earn enough to maintain their current size and schedule.

 

RNG lootboxes are an easy way to make money; that's all there is to it. What company do you know that turns down an option to make more cash?

 

Given that, there are bad ways to implement RNG boxes, worse ways, decent ways, and some pretty good ways. ANet's done all of the above, while avoiding the most horrid ones (where actual ability to play the game properly is gated behind them, as it is in other games). I'd give them 5/10 overall, with most of the lower number coming from their seeming inability to remember lessons they just learned about how/when to release stuff, about what players will accept from RNG, and about generally having some non-RNG alternatives.

[Lpfan.3578]

The 'expense' driving lootboxes is greed. There are ways to make money without lootboxes, they just know they can milk people for more overall with lootboxes... all while **claiming** some great price for individual skins!

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @Lpfan.3578 said:

> The 'expense' driving lootboxes is greed. There are ways to make money without lootboxes, they just know they can milk people for more overall with lootboxes... all while **claiming** some great price for individual skins!

 

Honestly, that's typical of Mike O'Brien to phrase things that are mathematically true, but meaningless to players without access to the same data he sees. (It's easily about the fifth or sixth time I've seen him do that.)

 

Here's how I imagine he looks at it:

> ANet can offer mount outfits for the same prices as character outfits: 400 for el-cheapo, 500 typical, 700 for semi-fancy, and 1000+ for the really sweet ones.

> Or sell them all via RNG for 400.

 

400 sounds better and it's a "substantial discount" compared to what they would have charged. But, of course, that's entirely irrelevant to us as players, since we don't have any way to know what the alternative pricing might have been. (Since _they didn't offer us the choice_.)

 

Of course, he deserves to be given a hard time for phrasing things like that, especially in a 1000-word essay intended to dampen the outrage. But I honestly think he misunderstood how the typical player would interpret "substantial discount," especially in the context.

 

 

[jheryn.8390]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @Lpfan.3578 said:

> > The 'expense' driving lootboxes is greed. There are ways to make money without lootboxes, they just know they can milk people for more overall with lootboxes... all while **claiming** some great price for individual skins!

>

> Honestly, that's typical of Mike O'Brien to phrase things that are mathematically true, but meaningless to players without access to the same data he sees. (It's easily about the fifth or sixth time I've seen him do that.)

>

> Here's how I imagine he looks at it:

> > ANet can offer mount outfits for the same prices as character outfits: 400 for el-cheapo, 500 typical, 700 for semi-fancy, and 1000+ for the really sweet ones.

> > Or sell them all via RNG for 400.

>

> 400 sounds better and it's a "substantial discount" compared to what they would have charged. But, of course, that's entirely irrelevant to us as players, since we don't have any way to know what the alternative pricing might have been. (Since _they didn't offer us the choice_.)

>

> Of course, he deserves to be given a hard time for phrasing things like that, especially in a 1000-word essay intended to dampen the outrage. But I honestly think he misunderstood how the typical player would interpret "substantial discount," especially in the context.

>

>

I agree with you except on one point. We kind of do see what they might sell it for as the warhound went for 2000 gems.

[Leo G.4501]

> @Lpfan.3578 said:

> The 'expense' driving lootboxes is greed. There are ways to make money without lootboxes, they just know they can milk people for more overall with lootboxes... all while **claiming** some great price for individual skins!

 

The problem with this line of thinking is: NCSoft don't care.

 

It would be great if the whole industry was Socialistic and everyone got an equal slice of the pie for their work, but this is capitalism. NCSoft *will* shut down your game if it doesn't make them their profit and just because you *feel* they could make more money by giving you exactly what you want for cheap, doesn't mean jack. Capitalism doesn't care about your feelings.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @jheryn.8390 said:

 

> I agree with you except on one point. We kind of do see what they might sell it for as the warhound went for 2000 gems.

 

I was sort of hoping no one noticed my (intentional) oversight. I can't for the life of me figure out how that skin is worth 2k gems when the spooky skins cost 2k total (retail) and look as intricate to me. On the other hand, if ANet intended to price Starbound at 2k gems, then the 9600 for 30 is starting to look an awful lot like a "substantial discount".

 

Either way, proves my point that Mike O'Brien's "substantial discount" is a classic "eye of the beholder" statement that only applies to ANet staff familiar with pricing decisions. There's absolutely no way a typical customer would have a sense of the meaning of "discount" based on the numbers we had seen prior to the licenses: the spooky mount pack.

 

In other words, if ANet wants us to be grateful for the idea of RNG licenses as a discount, they need to let us know what prices we would have had instead.

[Djinn.9245]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @jheryn.8390 said:

>

> > I agree with you except on one point. We kind of do see what they might sell it for as the warhound went for 2000 gems.

>

> I was sort of hoping no one noticed my (intentional) oversight. I can't for the life of me figure out how that skin is worth 2k gems when the spooky skins cost 2k total (retail) and look as intricate to me. On the other hand, if ANet intended to price Starbound at 2k gems, then the 9600 for 30 is starting to look an awful lot like a "substantial discount".

>

> Either way, proves my point that Mike O'Brien's "substantial discount" is a classic "eye of the beholder" statement that only applies to ANet staff familiar with pricing decisions. There's absolutely no way a typical customer would have a sense of the meaning of "discount" based on the numbers we had seen prior to the licenses: the spooky mount pack.

>

> In other words, if ANet wants us to be grateful for the idea of RNG licenses as a discount, they need to let us know what prices we would have had instead.

 

Spooky skins: 5 for 1600 gems = 320 gems a piece. Not sure how 400 gems for a random skin = a discount vs 320 gems for specific skins.

[TexZero.7910]

No. You can just thank industry standards for that.

 

It's far easier for any company to submit to what works for others than to stand up against bad practices that manipulate consumers.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > @jheryn.8390 said:

> >

> > > I agree with you except on one point. We kind of do see what they might sell it for as the warhound went for 2000 gems.

> >

> > I was sort of hoping no one noticed my (intentional) oversight. I can't for the life of me figure out how that skin is worth 2k gems when the spooky skins cost 2k total (retail) and look as intricate to me. On the other hand, if ANet intended to price Starbound at 2k gems, then the 9600 for 30 is starting to look an awful lot like a "substantial discount".

> >

> > Either way, proves my point that Mike O'Brien's "substantial discount" is a classic "eye of the beholder" statement that only applies to ANet staff familiar with pricing decisions. There's absolutely no way a typical customer would have a sense of the meaning of "discount" based on the numbers we had seen prior to the licenses: the spooky mount pack.

> >

> > In other words, if ANet wants us to be grateful for the idea of RNG licenses as a discount, they need to let us know what prices we would have had instead.

>

> Spooky skins: 5 for 1600 gems = 320 gems a piece. Not sure how 400 gems for a random skin = a discount vs 320 gems for specific skins.

 

The 'retail' price is 5 for 2000 gems = 400 each. 1600 was the discount price.

Even so, the main point is lost in that nitpick: we have no idea how much ANet would have charged for Starbound and other mount outfits. 400 is a lot less than the 2k for the stand-alone jackal. So in O'Brien's mind, that might be the "substantial discount".

 

I'm not saying I like ANet's original plan (I don't), I'm not saying I think O'Brien's "message" addressed our concerns well (I don't). I'm saying we have no idea what he meant by "substantial discount". And I'm also saying that is his responsibility, too. He shouldn't assume we have any idea what their alternatives were.

[Djinn.9245]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > > @jheryn.8390 said:

> > >

> > > > I agree with you except on one point. We kind of do see what they might sell it for as the warhound went for 2000 gems.

> > >

> > > I was sort of hoping no one noticed my (intentional) oversight. I can't for the life of me figure out how that skin is worth 2k gems when the spooky skins cost 2k total (retail) and look as intricate to me. On the other hand, if ANet intended to price Starbound at 2k gems, then the 9600 for 30 is starting to look an awful lot like a "substantial discount".

> > >

> > > Either way, proves my point that Mike O'Brien's "substantial discount" is a classic "eye of the beholder" statement that only applies to ANet staff familiar with pricing decisions. There's absolutely no way a typical customer would have a sense of the meaning of "discount" based on the numbers we had seen prior to the licenses: the spooky mount pack.

> > >

> > > In other words, if ANet wants us to be grateful for the idea of RNG licenses as a discount, they need to let us know what prices we would have had instead.

> >

> > Spooky skins: 5 for 1600 gems = 320 gems a piece. Not sure how 400 gems for a random skin = a discount vs 320 gems for specific skins.

>

> The 'retail' price is 5 for 2000 gems = 400 each. 1600 was the discount price.

> Even so, the main point is lost in that nitpick: we have no idea how much ANet would have charged for Starbound and other mount outfits. 400 is a lot less than the 2k for the stand-alone jackal. So in O'Brien's mind, that might be the "substantial discount".

>

> I'm not saying I like ANet's original plan (I don't), I'm not saying I think O'Brien's "message" addressed our concerns well (I don't). I'm saying we have no idea what he meant by "substantial discount". And I'm also saying that is his responsibility, too. He shouldn't assume we have any idea what their alternatives were.

 

Just presenting what I know. I heard rumor that 1600 gems was a discounted price but I didn't find any actual statement from Anet to that effect.

 

But you are correct that we simply don't know and we are forced to draw our own conclusions. Either way: 2000 gems as a "regular price" for 1 skin is ludicrous, 400 gems for a random skin as opposed to 400 or 320 for a known skin is not any kind of discount.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> Just presenting what I know. I heard rumor that 1600 gems was a discounted price but I didn't find any actual statement from Anet to that effect.

It literally said in the Gem Shop window: ~~2000~~ 1600 gems (20% discount).

(You're not the only one to have missed that; I didn't see it at first, even though it was right in front of my eyes as I was chatting with someone.)

 

> But you are correct that we simply don't know and we are forced to draw our own conclusions. Either way: 2000 gems as a "regular price" for 1 skin is ludicrous, 400 gems for a random skin as opposed to 400 or 320 for a known skin is not any kind of discount.

Yeah. That's what I mean by them having articulating the alternative in a way that actually helps us understand.

 

I really hope he meant "400 gems instead of 700-1000 gems" (although I would gladly pay 700 for Starbound, while I wouldn't pay 50 gems for most of the others). 2000 gems seems like a crazy price to me, when even the most expensive character outfit is "only" 1000 gems.

 

[Djinn.9245]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @Djinn.9245 said:

> > Just presenting what I know. I heard rumor that 1600 gems was a discounted price but I didn't find any actual statement from Anet to that effect.

> It literally said in the Gem Shop window: ~~2000~~ 1600 gems (20% discount).

 

Ah, I didn't see it in the store (didn't care at the time) and the wiki didn't give that info.