How much would you be willing to pay for a Mount Skin?

[Haleydawn.3764]

400-600 for a simple reskin.

700-1000 for something fancier.

1600 (Time sensitive discount from 2k) for a bundle, like the Spooky Mounts. (Really hoping for Wintersday bundle, and hoping I like them! They’ve got to have a similar effect to the Winter Black Lion weapons, or be Plushy mounts!)

[Ayumi Spender.1082]

It depends.

My brain sticks to the 800 gem marker, but if something was done really well/good I would probably PROBABLY go to 1000.

Like the Mecha Ram and Ugly Peacock Chicken thing I would spend 800 (if I liked how they look), but if they let's say did a skin where the doesn't even look the same... just like how some gliders uses completely different models/animations/etc? I would spend 1000.

 

Example:

T-Rex Raptor I would spend 800

Triceratops Raptor I would spend 1000

[TwilightSoul.9048]

> @"ShiningSquirrel.3751" said:

> Not a very good poll and no answer that would really be valid for me. I said 2000+ gems, but only depending on the skin. Some skins I would not pay more then 25/30 gems for, if something was really spectacular I would be willing to pay more, and there are some I would not use if they where free.

 

I appreciate feedback on the quality of this poll but please do tell me what I could've done better in your opinion.

If you're willing to pay 2000+ Gems, which you're saying you are, then this poll and it's options are perfectly suited for you to express yourself ;)

 

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> tl;dr it's not so much that the prices are "too high;" it's that ANet gave us good reasons to believe that prices would be much, much lower.

 

I think it's both, they did give us very good reason to believe they would be lower but at the same time I believe we have good reason to argue they are indeed too high. I could see an Aurene Griffon Skin with custom sounds and animations beeing worth 2000 Gems but a slightly more fancy raptor?

 

> Mike O`Brien on Reddit: "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."

 

I may not understand his text correctly since english isn't my first language but I don't think they (anet) are doing what they think they are doing. Yes, if enough people buy it it does support ongoing live development. But you have a huge player base, why do you want to rely on "enough" people? Why don't you try to appeal to "as many as possible"? I know juggling numbers isn't alway easy when you're doing predictions, I've studied Mathematics so I know a thing or two about those pesky numbers, and you don't need to be a genius to understand that having more customers is good and you have a way bigger number of potential customers whom you could appeal to if you lowered the price tags a little.

 

Personally if this price trend continues, I will not buy a single Mount Skin except if there is another package like the Halloween one with Skins that I really really like.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @TwilightSoul.9048 said:

> I may not understand his text correctly since english isn't my first language but I don't think they (anet) are doing what they think they are doing. Yes, if enough people buy it it does support ongoing live development. But you have a huge player base, why do you want to rely on "enough" people? Why don't you try to appeal to "as many as possible"? I know juggling numbers isn't alway easy when you're doing predictions, I've studied Mathematics so I know a thing or two about those pesky numbers, and you don't need to be a genius to understand that having more customers is good and you have a way bigger number of potential customers whom you could appeal to if you lowered the price tags a little.

 

Actually, while your theory is sound (and your English comprehension is good :) ), in practice, it turns out that it's more lucrative to rely on "enough" people rather than appealing to as many as possible. The easiest RL equivalent is: a top wait-staffer at a busy diner is going to work much much harder to earn fewer tips (and a lower base pay) than their "colleague" who works at the fanciest (and priciest) restaurant in town. The former has many, many more customers (faster turnover typically), but they tip much less, while the latter has a tiny number of customers and ends up taking more home.

 

That doesn't, of course, make it right for ANet to market more to whales. In effect, we're all customers of the same restaurant (if we want to illogically extend my analogy into a metaphor) and so it feelsBadMan for more of us. Then again, it doesn't make it wrong. Things like public radio and unions (in most jurisdictions) are supported by "whales" and extend their benefits to everyone.

 

That's why I will keep saying that I don't think the prices are "too high", only that (a) I'm not willing to pay 2k for a single mountfit and (b) I think ANet made a huge strategic mistake in how they set our expectations for prices. For me, it's not the price; it's they gave us really good reasons to believe that we would pay far, far less.

 

tl;dr it's far more efficient to let the few pay for the many. While I accept that, I think ANet failed spectacularly in preparing us for the prices. They shouldn't have been surprised that we were shocked.

 

[Danikat.8537]

It depends on the skin - I'd be willing to pay more for ones I really like and less for ones that are just ok. 1000 gems would be for one I really like the look of which also perfectly suits one or more of my main characters.

 

Also I wouldn't totally rule out paying more for the right skin. My answer is based on my experience so far in Elder Scrolls Online, where I paid £10.90 for a clouded leopard mount because it's a clouded leopard and they're amazing and it's so rare to even see one in a game (or real life for that matter) but have refused to pay more than that even if I kind of liked the mount because I didn't feel the price was justified. (For example I was willing to pay about £10 for the elk mount, but when it was released it cost £20 so I didn't get it.)

 

Based on the fact that I assumed most mounts would cost 600-800 gems and I keep finding myself almost subconsciously doing the mental gymnastics of "I'd pay 800 gems for a mount I like, I like about 15 of the RNG ones, and they cost 400 each so if I bought all of them it'd be 800 each for the ones I like, and if I got them all it would be more like buying a pack of 30 than RNG, so it'd be ok..." I'd say 800 gems is probably my baseline with 1000 for really special skins.

[Shirlias.8104]

1/5 of those who voted would pay 2k for a mount.

Now just imagine if it was lets say a 1% ( 20% is unrealistic ) of the total playerbase.

 

It would be a total win for them by so far.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @Shirlias.8104 said:

> 1/5 of those who voted would pay 2k for a mount.

> Now just imagine if it was lets say a 1% ( 20% is unrealistic ) of the total playerbase.

>

> It would be a total win for them by so far.

 

Indeed.

[Game of Bones.8975]

I don't pay for skins unless they are AWESOME!!!

I would pay more if the skin went for all 5 mounts, if it had unique stationary/movement animations, or if I thought it went with character themes (armored, elemental, celestial, demonic, goofy, etc)

[Oglaf.1074]

> @Shirlias.8104 said:

> 1/5 of those who voted would pay 2k for a mount.

> Now just imagine if it was lets say a 1% ( 20% is unrealistic ) of the total playerbase.

>

> It would be a total win for them by so far.

 

Yes, that is how whales/freemium works, as I was saying...

[Sqwyt.5731]

Looking at the poll results it would mean that they would make the most profit with 800 gem mount skins. That is if all the voters would actually buy the skin up to the amount gems they voted.

[Lilyanna.9361]

> @SlateSloan.3654 said:

> 200 gems not more.

 

That is so grossly underpriced that made my art side double take and squint at this post. Are you guys even artists?

 

Like seriously. If you are just working in an office or something you need to actually stop. That doesn't even cover a quarter of an artist's time or supplies to do a piece. Everyone has their subjective likes and wants for cosmetics, but paying someone not even fivd bucks for fully digital and animated art actually sickens me.

 

Cheap. Absolutely undercut and cheap. I'll make sure to undercut any business you are in.

[Oglaf.1074]

> @Sqwyt.5731 said:

> Looking at the poll results it would mean that they would make the most profit with 800 gem mount skins. That is if all the voters would actually buy the skin up to the amount gems they voted.

 

Well, obviously not.

 

There hasn't been a single skin to pique my fancy yet, so I obviously wouldn't buy them even at a more reasonable price. 800 Gems is simply the max I would pay if they were to release one that does.

[TheOrlyFactor.8341]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> ANet set my expectations with past pricing.

> * Outfits cost 400-1000 gems, with only one at the top price, most in the 600-700 range.

> * The very first mountfits cost 400 gems each, in a package of five retailing at 2000... and even that was discounted to 1600.

>

> So ANet led me to believe that mountfits would cost 400 for the cheapo ones, 400 each for fancy ones when bundled, and 600-700 most of the time.

> ****

>

> I think this was a tragic marketing fail on their part because they easily could have reset my expectations.

> * The Spooky set could have been listed as 4000 gems (800 each in the bundle), offered for the same 1600 (i.e. 60% off) during Halloween, and then at retail (4k) for a week after.

> * Then they could have released 5 basic skins at new prices: 800 for a near-duplicate of default skins, except with 4 dye channels.

> * Then 5 extremely fancy mountfits for 2000 each, leaving all 10 skins up.

> * Only then would they introduce the Mount License system,

>

> At that point, 400 each would look exactly like the substantial discount Mike O'Brien thinks it is, even with the RNG. And no one would be sticker-price shocked by 2k skins.

>

> There still would have been posts about "what is micro about 2k gems?" but without the intensity of outrage, as if there was some issue of great morality at stake.

>

> tl;dr it's not so much that the prices are "too high;" it's that ANet gave us good reasons to believe that prices would be much, much lower.

 

This is pretty much my feelings on the matter.

 

I personally don't care about mount skins for myself but I've gifted friends mount skins and 1000 is my upper limit for just one skin. If a bundle like the Spooky skin bundle breaks down to 1000 gems or less for one skin then I'll buy it for them.

 

Anet's getting my gems (so far though they're pushing my tolerance levels with the latest story) through convenience items so they're getting 2000+ gems from me through other means like Unbound Harvesting Tools, character slots, bank tabs, and inventory slots. :P

[Menadena.7482]

> @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

> 700 gems. This is the standard price for most outfits. I do not want to pay more for a mount outfit.

 

Exactly. The cost of a glider is my limit but I could be talked into the cost of an outfit for a REALLY good skin. The 800 gems is too high: that is10 USD and then it is "do I want some pixels or lunch"? Guess what anet? Lunch always wins.

 

[Drarnor Kunoram.5180]

If the Mount Adoption licenses were 250-300 gems instead of 400, I don't think there would have been much uproar over them, simply because the Halloween skin pack said "Hey, mount skins are going to be about 400 gems a piece." Then we would see an actual discount with a tradeoff of not having direct control over what we got.

 

Individual skins running up to 800 gems for desirable ones is honestly what I expected, with particularly involved do-overs (like reforged hound) going up to 1000-1200 gems.

[Traveller.7496]

I feel like 800 gems would be a proper price, same as outfits.

[Oglaf.1074]

> @"Drarnor Kunoram.5180" said:

> If the Mount Adoption licenses were 250-300 gems instead of 400, I don't think there would have been much uproar over them

 

The price wasn't the root of the outrage. It was the lootbox gambling.

 

Go over and read the infamous "Feedback"-thread and you'll see that it is the method itself, not the price, that got everyone mad.

 

[Ashen.2907]

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > @Sqwyt.5731 said:

> > Looking at the poll results it would mean that they would make the most profit with 800 gem mount skins. That is if all the voters would actually buy the skin up to the amount gems they voted.

>

> Well, obviously not.

>

> There hasn't been a single skin to pique my fancy yet, so I obviously wouldn't buy them even at a more reasonable price. 800 Gems is simply the max I would pay if they were to release one that does.

 

I am in a similar situation. I would be willing to spend up to 2000 gems for a mount skin that I really like....but nothing released so far would entice me. This is part of why the prices are as high as they are (in addition to subsidizing a reduced expansion cost). They know that a large portion of the playerbase will not buy a given mount regardless of price.

[Aomine.5012]

Even 800 gem is abit too much honestly, considering the Halloween package is 1.6k with 400 per skin.

[Drarnor Kunoram.5180]

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > @"Drarnor Kunoram.5180" said:

> > If the Mount Adoption licenses were 250-300 gems instead of 400, I don't think there would have been much uproar over them

>

> The price wasn't the root of the outrage. It was the lootbox gambling.

>

> Go over and read the infamous "Feedback"-thread and you'll see that it is the method itself, not the price, that got everyone mad.

>

 

Not exactly. The Halloween Mount Pack had already established the average mount skin to be worth 400 gems. The Mount Adoption Licenses were a large collection of "average mount skins." with a couple of jewels thrown in. Why am I paying the normal price when I don't get to control what I'm getting?

 

Loot boxes in other games, and even grab bags from dealers at conventions and the like, are always sold at a discount. The Adoption Licenses were not.

 

Now, there is a second part to this that they should have offered the individual skins ranging from 400-800 gems as well, but even if the adoption licenses were a clear "whatever you get, it's cheaper than normal," the uproar would have been lower.

[Oglaf.1074]

> @Ashen.2907 said:

> > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > > @Sqwyt.5731 said:

> > > Looking at the poll results it would mean that they would make the most profit with 800 gem mount skins. That is if all the voters would actually buy the skin up to the amount gems they voted.

> >

> > Well, obviously not.

> >

> > There hasn't been a single skin to pique my fancy yet, so I obviously wouldn't buy them even at a more reasonable price. 800 Gems is simply the max I would pay if they were to release one that does.

>

> I am in a similar situation. I would be willing to spend up to 2000 gems for a mount skin that I really like....but nothing released so far would entice me. This is part of why the prices are as high as they are (in addition to subsidizing a reduced expansion cost). They know that a large portion of the playerbase will not buy a given mount regardless of price.

 

But they'd sell alot more of them at 800 Gems still, I bet. My guild leader, for example, is in love with the peacock but is not willing to pay 30 dollars for a single skin.

 

At 800 Gems I bet she'd buy it in a heartbeat.

[Malediktus.9250]

1000 gems would be my limit unless it looks godlike

[Sir Vincent III.1286]

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > @"Sir Vincent III.1286" said:

> > It's best to keep in mind that these are skins, not mounts. In my opinion, 2000 gems is a reasonable price tag. However, so far I have not seen anything I want to buy and I'm happy with the randomized skins.

>

> Do elaborate on how you think _a skin_ costing half the price of a _new AAA game_ is in any shape or form "reasonable".

 

You're looking at this wrong. I think that the price of the AAA game is unreasonably cheap just to attract sales. If the developer cost them reasonably, they would sell them at least $79 a pop.

 

The real question is; Is Path of Fire Expansion at $40 reasonable? My answer is no. Is Heart of Thorns at $50 reasonable? My answer is no. Each one should have been priced at $79 at least. However, they find that they have to make sacrifices in order to sell their product, thus they made an unreasonable decision to lower their price.

 

Then the follow-up question is; Am I willing to pay that price? My answer would be no. The reason is not that it's expensive, the reason is that I have better things to spend that money on. Sure I can buy other games with that money, maybe even two games, but they are not Guild Wars 2. When they offered the $99 game package for HoT, I bought that because I find that price reasonable. Did I buy the $79 PoF ultimate package? My answer is no. This is because I rather buy gems with that money without the trash item I care little about. I bought the standard PoF and bought 4000 gems.

 

I have not met any iPhone owner who will tell me that $800 smartphone is unreasonable. Only those who don't own an iPhone will say that the price is unreasonable. In the same way, those who own the 2000 gems mount skin will not find the price unreasonable, only those who don't own them would. If ArenaNet releases a 2000 gems Griffon skin that I like, I'd buy that in a heartbeat.

[Killthehealersffs.8940]

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > @"Drarnor Kunoram.5180" said:

> > If the Mount Adoption licenses were 250-300 gems instead of 400, I don't think there would have been much uproar over them

>

> The price wasn't the root of the outrage. It was the lootbox gambling.

>

> Go over and read the infamous "Feedback"-thread and you'll see that it is the method itself, not the price, that got everyone mad.

>

 

How about reduce the gold rewards across the game and lower it to 800 gems ? :P

Theres is no RNG , nor high cost mounts , while keeping the 30 euros x-packs

[Oglaf.1074]

> @Killthehealersffs.8940 said:

> > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > > @"Drarnor Kunoram.5180" said:

> > > If the Mount Adoption licenses were 250-300 gems instead of 400, I don't think there would have been much uproar over them

> >

> > The price wasn't the root of the outrage. It was the lootbox gambling.

> >

> > Go over and read the infamous "Feedback"-thread and you'll see that it is the method itself, not the price, that got everyone mad.

> >

>

> How about reduce the gold rewards across the game and lower it to 800 gems ? :P

> Theres is no RNG , nor high cost mounts , while keeping the 30 euros x-packs

 

Or how about we just sell things directly (no gambling) at a fair price?

 

Y'know, the way Anet has done business, succesfully, for literally years up until they somehow went crazy recently?