Resplendent Avialan raptor Feedback

[Bloodstealer.5978]

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> >you had the opportunity to buy skins over a period of time for 400 gems each

>

> No that is blatantly false.

>

> We had the opportunity to **gamble** for skins at 400 Gems per "spin".

>

> Nice trying to blame the players for Anet's terrible business practices as of late though. Super class act, man. This insane pricing is in no way or form the "fault" of the playerbase.

>

>

 

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> >you had the opportunity to buy skins over a period of time for 400 gems each

>

> No that is blatantly false.

>

> We had the opportunity to **gamble** for skins at 400 Gems per "spin".

>

> Nice trying to blame the players for Anet's terrible business practices as of late though. Super class act, man. This insane pricing is in no way or form the "fault" of the playerbase.

>

>

 

No sorry to burst that bubble but you are the one wrong here... every skin in the pack had a 400gem value. It was a collection just like the football card or pokemon systems you see for kids. The fact you might only of wanted one of the collection and ignore the fact that each purchase cost the same and provided a different skin, each time is down to you.

 

You go into these things with both eyes open. The skins are subjective in that different players like different skins for differing reasons, so it was never put out there as a "one skin for all" sale it was a collection for all that you could obtain either straight away in one large purchase or take your time and spend 400 gems when you want..

 

We have now had 2 skins put out for high value gems prices, and this is likely just the beginning.

But hey if you feel its worth the price tag then, like me, do your talking with your wallet.

[Frostfang.5109]

> @ReaverKane.7598 said:

> Taking the risk of beating up a dead horse, i'll have to address the issue with this:

> # It's not worth 2000 gems.

>

> Come on Arena Net... This again?

> Look, here's the deal, the skin is kinda neat, and all, but it's not GREAT, i might use it on my mesmer, because mesmers are peacocky and all, but that's it...

> Now do you really think that a **SINGLE SKIN** is worth the same amount of gems as a pack that holds an **outfit + glider + back skin + dyes + Total Make Over Kit + Unique-ish weapon skin**, not to mention the same value as a pack of **5 different mount skins**?

> Did you sell enough of the Warhound to make you think that people will buy stuff at this price? I personally saw like 3 Warhounds in-game since they were released, so i'm assuming not that many were sold.

 

 

OP says it all so well!!!

[Frostfang.5109]

It doesnt look amazing enough to spend 2000 gems on it. Mainly the tail is ugly. The rest is ok.

[JackOfAllGames.2409]

I don't know what the right price for a mount skin would be, but I'd have to REALLY want something to pay that much. This skin? I don't want it NEARLY that much. $10 is about the limit of what I'd consider. Even that seems a tad high, but if I'm honest with myself, I'd probably still get one occasionally.

[orenwolf.1953]

> @"Hybarf Tics.2048" said:

> _**Thank you all for your passion, and again, thank you for your continued support of Live development.**_

> ~ MO

> What support don't you get it you've lost mine permanently because of your greedy $25.00 a skin fiasco...!

 

Can I have your stuff?

 

I'm sorry you can't afford the Gucci bag of the GW2 world, but I for one would like to continue seeing content created and MO has made it clear this pricing makes it possible. I'm sure there are other games out there where you can get every single cosmetic item for free or cheaply. I wish you the best of luck in them (but I still want your stuff!)

[PirateSpice.8735]

> @orenwolf.1953 said:

> I'm sorry you can't afford the Gucci bag of the GW2 world, but I for one would like to continue seeing content created and MO has made it clear this pricing makes it possible.

I don't think I'd agree that this was made clear at all. What is clear is that this is what Anet is going to charge. But I have heavy doubts that this pricing is necessary to sustain new content creation. Given just how expensive the Gem Store is becoming overall, it seems much more like this is all testing the waters to see what the market will bear.

 

 

[asterix.9614]

Would have bought it in a heart beat if it had a beak and was an alternative flying skin...............

[Ayumi Spender.1082]

> @asterix.9614 said:

> Would have bought it in a heart beat if it had a beak and was an alternative flying skin...............

 

Perfect. Get a griffon.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> No sorry to burst that bubble but you are the one wrong here... every skin in the pack had a 400gem value.

No. Every skin in the pack was _priced_ at 400 gems (though, only if you bought them all. If you just wanted a speciic skin, the pricing on that skin was extremely random), but that doesn't mean they had that value. Even Anet didn't believe that was their value, or they wouldn't have used the lootbox approach with them.

 

 

[Bloodstealer.5978]

> @Astralporing.1957 said:

> > @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> > No sorry to burst that bubble but you are the one wrong here... every skin in the pack had a 400gem value.

> No. Every skin in the pack was _priced_ at 400 gems (though, only if you bought them all. If you just wanted a speciic skin, the pricing on that skin was extremely random), but that doesn't mean they had that value. Even Anet didn't believe that was their value, or they wouldn't have used the lootbox approach with them.

>

>

 

That's because you view it as a single skin collection.. it wasn't, it was a 30 skin collection and each skin has a 400 gem value..

If you wanted to play chance on just one of 30 skins in a box then that's your choice..

You are guaranteed to get every skin at a 400 gem purchase each or play the chance game.

Now you get 1 skin for 2000 gems, that's 2 skins now actually .. so for 4k skins so far.

Even if they halved that amount for all future skins your still going to be paying some serious sponduly for a comparable collection of skins.. yes subjectively some are more desirable than others to players but not everyone chases the same dream... heck that attempt at a peacock raptor to me is just awful, but hey some like it so as I said, enjoy.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @Drecien.4508 said:

> All I'm gonna say is be careful what you wished for. Changes were made. Live with them. ??

 

Actually, it's likely that the pricing of this particular mount was already planned, which is why Mike O'Brien is able to believe that 400 gems for a random mountfit was a substantial discount. We'll have to wait to see whether there will be simpler skins that are priced lower.

 

Regardless, ANet set my expectations for the prices to be much lower. Outfits are mostly 600-700 and the very first set of mountfits was stated to be 400 gems each (2000 gems before the discount). I'm really surprised that they are surprised that a lot of folks aren't willing/ready to pay 2k for just one skin.

[Danikat.8537]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @Drecien.4508 said:

> > All I'm gonna say is be careful what you wished for. Changes were made. Live with them. ??

>

> Actually, it's likely that the pricing of this particular mount was already planned, which is why Mike O'Brien is able to believe that 400 gems for a random mountfit was a substantial discount. We'll have to wait to see whether there will be simpler skins that are priced lower.

>

> Regardless, ANet set my expectations for the prices to be much lower. Outfits are mostly 600-700 and the very first set of mountfits was stated to be 400 gems each (2000 gems before the discount). I'm really surprised that they are surprised that a lot of folks aren't willing/ready to pay 2k for just one skin.

 

Agreed.

 

Honestly I think if they had sold some of the plainer skins from the RNG box individually (not all of them of course, wouldn't want to overwhelm us) for 600-700 gems each (I'd go as high as 800 personally) alongside flashier skins like this and the mecha-jackal for 2,000 gems there would be far less complaints. That way it would be a much clearer and IMO more reasonable system.

 

* **Option 1:** Gamble for skins at a slightly discounted price of 400 gems each. You may get something you like cheaply, or something you hate and feel you wasted the money, or something that's just ok.

* **Option 2:** Buy a bundle for 2,000 gems (400 each). No choice but no RNG either.

* **Option 3:** Pay more to choose specific skins - you're absolutely guaranteed to get the one you pick and only have to pay for that, but it will cost more.

* **Option 4:** Buy a premium skin at a premium price.

 

So far we've only had 1 bundle, which was the very first release so I suspect a lot of players didn't realise that was going to be their best option for the foreseeable future. I didn't buy it because I didn't like the skeletons painted on and thought I'd wait for the next themed bundle/individual skins since I expected (correctly) that I'd like those better. Since then we've only had the two extremes - cheap RNG skins or expensive premium ones, nothing in between.

 

Of course 'since then' has only been a few weeks, and with new gem store items usually only appearing once a week at most that's not really long at all. But at this point it doesn't look good. My overall impression is that the release of mount skins was not well planned - they're throwing different ideas out there and seeing what sells and what gets too many complaints. Which to be fair is what Anet usually does with new things. But it's also quite frustrating.

 

I can't help thinking what they really need is a way to get feedback from players on how systems like this are likely to be received _before_ releasing them.

[ProtoGunner.4953]

Also get your currencies fair: we still pay same with euro and usd. although 25 euro are now 30 dollars. With that said with the currency exchange I would have to pay 30 dollars for one mount skin. Sorry dudes, but what the hell? Are you totally insane?

[Ashen.2907]

> @Matick.4132 said:

> > @Healix.5819 said:

> > As a general rule, if the mount isn't a simple retexture or modification, it's going to cost 2000 gems. They didn't randomly choose that number, it's simply the standard price for mounts in the major MMOs.

>

> Yeah, just because other are stupid and greedy we're gonna do that, too?

> That doesn't make it any less awful and thanks to the six, there's more and more talk that regulatory law needs to step into this topic (ok, the RNG/Lootbox thingy, but putting on tighter regulations on that wouldn't hurt either)

> This remembers me of the ol' tale your parents used to tell ya – maybe they didn't tell you, dunno, no offence but:

> _'if the other kids jump from that bridge, you jump, too?'_

>

> This brings us back to all the talk of greediness with microtransactions.

> One thing is clear, it's not needed in any way. Look at Hollywood. They have multimillion dollar productions rollin off of their production lines like crazy, but they found enough ways to come around the thing, to charge a stupid amount of cash at the box office (well... let's not get TOO much into this), at least they're not coming up to you in the middle of the film saying: _'Hey, if you wanna see the really cool stuff, that be 10 bucks more!'_

>

 

What a great idea, MMOs could charge $15 for every two hours of play...

 

Might want to consider your comparison's more carefully.

[Omnicron.2467]

> @Lanhelin.3480 said:

> > @Matick.4132 said:

> > **Seriously ANet, you're listening to any cat content and can post an instant reply, so you must notice what's going on here!**

>

> Currently they are pretty engaged celebrating on [reddit](

"reddit"). No time to react to topics like this on the official forums.

>

> But since the whole skingate and despite MO's answer (who by the way isn't game director anymore, just read the thread on reddit) then the rng-element in the pack and now the overpriced single skin I wonder whether it really is Arenanet who decides and sets the prices in the shop or rather NCSoft demanding it?

>

> Edit:

> It's not NCSoft.

>

> >Hi,

> >

> >As I wrote in my previous response, it’s been a wonderful challenge to support all Living World and Live content development for a game of this size, for five years and counting, purely through the sale of optional microtransactions. We laid out our guiding principles for GW2 microtransactions in March 2012 and we've held true to them ever since. My motivation is to continue to stay true to those principles while also continuing to fund Live content development. I recently apologized for our missteps with the Mount Adoption License. Still, mount skins are purely cosmetic, thus in many ways an ideal embodiment of our goal to support the game with optional microtransactions.

> >

> > Most of us have two relationships with the GW2 gem store. One relationship is that of a customer: we purchase things when we want them for ourselves and agree with how they’re bundled and priced. Another relationship is that of an interested party: we know that ArenaNet funds Live development through the sale of gems for cash, and we enjoy playing new content like today’s release, so we hope that the gem store does well enough to keep supporting content development. We might say, “I wouldn’t buy that!”, but if enough people buy it that it supports ongoing Live development, we’re still happy.

> >

> > Mount skins are style items, and style items have some unique challenges. They’re subject to individual taste, so except for the very flashiest items, individual style items will have limited sales. Also, GW2 isn’t setup to support an enjoyable experience of browsing through a large catalog of style items, so players tend not to do that. What our data shows is that higher-priced flashy individual items can work, and lower-average-price-per-item bundles can work, but lower-priced individual items generally don’t generate meaningful revenue to support the game. And the whole point of these items is to support the game.

> >

> > GW2 is a content-rich online world with no monthly fee, so it’s a great overall value, with microtransactions doing the heavy lifting of funding continued development of the game. It shouldn’t also be our goal to have the lowest-priced microtransactions. In that case, the only logical outcome would be that we could afford to make less content than other developers, and I think that’s not what any of us are looking for. I love our current pace of content development and I hope we can support it for a long time to come.

> >

> > We’re all in this together. It’s obvious in your posts that you’re thoughtful and motivated to see the game do well. You balance between loving the game and not always agreeing with how gem store items are bundled or priced. That’s fair. We have a commerce team that lives that dilemma every day. We’re all doing our best for the long-term health of the game.

> >

> > Thank you all for your passion, and again, thank you for your continued support of Live development.

> >

> > ~ MO

>

> Source:

 

If this is true then I can understand and respect ANET's decision. To be fair I am not sure I would buy either of the remodel skins even at half price, I just do not like them enough to throw gems at them, which is what I think MO is saying. For people who love them but cannot afford them it must be very frustrating so I sympathise. Personally I enjoy the skins locked behing RNG lootboxes a lot more :(

[Frostfang.5109]

At least include a mini of the 2k mount skin when buying it.

[ProtoGunner.4953]

BTW why was this outrage not with the other 2000gems mount skin? Most people forgot that together with the adoption license they also sold this forged jackal skin for 2k gems.

 

Also, what I always wanted to know, how can Dulfy afford all skins that the game releases?

[Astralporing.1957]

> @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> That's because you view it as a single skin collection.. it wasn't, it was a 30 skin collection and each skin has a 400 gem value..

Price. If Anet thought all these skins had a 400 gem _value_, they would have given us the option to obtain them directly (for example in a way similar to black lion weapon tickets). If they didn't, it means they knew that at least some of the skins will _not_ sell at that price.

 

> @ProtoGunner.4953 said:

> BTW why was this outrage not with the other 2000gems mount skin?

Most likely because people didn't expect yet for that mount to be a baseline, instead of an exception.

 

> @ProtoGunner.4953 said:

> Also, what I always wanted to know, how can Dulfy afford all skins that the game releases?

She can't. Which is why a lot of screens are from _other_ people.

[Aerlen.5326]

It looks like the joke Legendary Kasmeer mount :p

I haven't been a fan of either of the 2000 gem mounts, they've both been ugly and not the best use of the mount models.

[Matick.4132]

> @Ashen.2907 said:

> > @Matick.4132 said:

> > This brings us back to all the talk of greediness with microtransactions.

> > One thing is clear, it's not needed in any way. Look at Hollywood. They have multimillion dollar productions rollin off of their production lines like crazy, but they found enough ways to come around the thing, to charge a stupid amount of cash at the box office (well... let's not get TOO much into this), at least they're not coming up to you in the middle of the film saying: _'Hey, if you wanna see the really cool stuff, that be 10 bucks more!'_

> >

>

> What a great idea, MMOs could charge $15 for every two hours of play...

>

> Might want to consider your comparison's more carefully.

 

Could you pls elaborate more on your reply? thx

 

The comparison isn’t far fetched.

So Hollywood AAA titles – for the sake of the argument I use the same nomenclature for blockbusters – do charge a bit more for 30min of ‘extended screenplay’ or ‘IMAX’ version of their films, but it’s nothing compared to ‘microtransactions’ in games.

 

Hollywood found ways to substantially fund their multimillion dollar productions, without getting onto their fans as much as the games industry lately. They use product placement – though debatable too – as one way to do that, or fundraising, or merch, or licensing... etc. pp. there are more ways out there, than microtransactions wich is a shady euphemism to be honest, when you look at the numbers!

 

Yesterday, dunno wich company was it, a mayor car maker stated that there are indeed ways to ‘monetise the driving experience’ more. So for example: **paying a 24hrs fee for extended head lights when you need to make a nightly road trip**, instead of your normal way of driving inside the city. (I’m not kidding, google it. Just can’t remember it right now!)

 

So I can go as far out as saying that these gem-store practices can be compared to your car company giving you access to a functioning windows, if you’d pay extra. Wich said ridiculous!

 

But... as stated elsewhere multiple times:

The gem store is ok, for some fancy stuff, if this fancy stuff (or comparable stuff) can be otherwise obtained ingame, too.

**And no:** The pricing is way too high for a normal frood with a job and familiec to even come into the range of exchanging gold to gems. So you are forced to spend cash, if – and we’ve been there too – we can agree on the fact that **customisation is a huge part of any RPG ever since!**

 

 

[Matick.4132]

> @Coulter.2315 said:

> > @Matick.4132 said:

> > I heard about a new mount on the store and thought: **'Nah, with all the backlash lately, they just aren't... oh boy, they are!'**

> >

> > **I really don't enjoy playing the game right now anymore.** I was really looking forward to LS4, but after this I didn't even bother to look into the story or even travel to the new areas. Yeah I might be a little emotional on this …

>

> You seem to have too much of your happiness dependent on gemstore items, I mean if not buying a gemstore skin today ruined your day then you might have an issue. The mount is over priced for me, I won't buy it, you need to relax.

 

First: maybe. But as stated, I’m a bit emotional on that topic, but this isn’t about the item itself.

 

It’s not that this pony item ruinied my day, it was the lack of respect to us players.

 

That they simply go on with the BS like all this backlash never happend. Like they just don’t give a >>> pls. insert swearword of your choice <<< on what’s going on!

[Rawr.9467]

open the gemstore

 


 

[Cynz.9437]

Don't want to pay the price, don't pay it. Simple as it is.

Besides it is just a skin, pixels really that will be uninteresting within a month or so. It is not necessary for the actual gameplay.

[Ashen.2907]

> @Matick.4132 said:

> > @Ashen.2907 said:

> > > @Matick.4132 said:

> > > This brings us back to all the talk of greediness with microtransactions.

> > > One thing is clear, it's not needed in any way. Look at Hollywood. They have multimillion dollar productions rollin off of their production lines like crazy, but they found enough ways to come around the thing, to charge a stupid amount of cash at the box office (well... let's not get TOO much into this), at least they're not coming up to you in the middle of the film saying: _'Hey, if you wanna see the really cool stuff, that be 10 bucks more!'_

> > >

> >

> > What a great idea, MMOs could charge $15 for every two hours of play...

> >

> > Might want to consider your comparison's more carefully.

>

> Could you pls elaborate more on your reply? thx

>

> The comparison isn’t far fetched.

> So Hollywood AAA titles – for the sake of the argument I use the same nomenclature for blockbusters – do charge a bit more for 30min of ‘extended screenplay’ or ‘IMAX’ version of their films, but it’s nothing compared to ‘microtransactions’ in games.

>

> Hollywood found ways to substantially fund their multimillion dollar productions, without getting onto their fans as much as the games industry lately. They use product placement – though debatable too – as one way to do that, or fundraising, or merch, or licensing... etc. pp. there are more ways out there, than microtransactions wich is a shady euphemism to be honest, when you look at the numbers!

>

> Yesterday, dunno wich company was it, a mayor car maker stated that there are indeed ways to ‘monetise the driving experience’ more. So for example: **paying a 24hrs fee for extended head lights when you need to make a nightly road trip**, instead of your normal way of driving inside the city. (I’m not kidding, google it. Just can’t remember it right now!)

>

> So I can go as far out as saying that these gem-store practices can be compared to your car company giving you access to a functioning windows, if you’d pay extra. Wich said ridiculous!

>

> But... as stated elsewhere multiple times:

> The gem store is ok, for some fancy stuff, if this fancy stuff (or comparable stuff) can be otherwise obtained ingame, too.

> **And no:** The pricing is way too high for a normal frood with a job and familiec to even come into the range of exchanging gold to gems. So you are forced to spend cash, if – and we’ve been there too – we can agree on the fact that **customisation is a huge part of any RPG ever since!**

>

>

 

Merchandising and licensing for hollywood movies are the equivalent of microtransaction, as are the snacks sold in the theater.

 

Even so, my point was that you were comparing GW2, which charges $50 for, potentially, thousands ot hours of use, to movies, for which we are exlected to pay $7.50 per hour. If GW2 were to match its pricing to that of a major blockbuster one might be expected to pay (some people speak of many thousands of hours of play time) tens of thousands of dollars.

 

And no one is forced to spend real money on gems. I dont know what a "frood" is, but I have a job and a family and have the ability, if I choose, to convert gold to gems to buy what I want from the gemstore.

 

"Ever since," what?

[killermanjaro.5670]

Personally I don't like the skin anyway, so won't be buying it because of that. But if a mount skin I wanted and liked (shiba!), was available for 2000 gems then I'd probably buy it (I'd probably split the funding as 50% from gold and 50% from actual money).

 

2000 gems for a skin is a bit steep, but I appreciate the work that goes into them (even on the skins that I don't like), and I would much rather have this price model, rather than having to gamble for a skin which could potentially end up costing 9000-10000 gems to get, and leave me with a bunch of surplus skins which have no trade value, or use to me whatsoever. Any skins that come out in stupid RNG boxes are something I'll never get because I'm not going to be prepared to potentially throw 9-10k of gems out for one skin, so in that case 2000 gems for a skin to me is a good price, as if a skin comes out that I like, then I know exactly what it will cost me, and I'll be able to get it without playing the game of RNG which could cost 5x that amount.