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

[TheRandomGuy.7246]

~7-10 pounds/month for unlimited access to everything in the gemstore. If they gonna start balancing the game and speed up the release pace of everything not "living" world related that is.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @Blaeys.3102 said:

> I think Mike OBrien's post about this on reddit summarized the issue well. While we, as consumers, look at it from a money for value perspective, Anet has to take a bigger point of view.

Nah, not bigger. Their. They're trying to maximize their income using any trick available that isn't illegal, without thinking about their players. Just like EA.

 

 

[Endless Soul.5178]

> @"Just a flesh wound.3589" said:

> 1000 is my upper limit, if it’s something I really, really like. Other than that, when I said I’d buy mountfits* from the gemstore I was thinking they’d be in the 500-800 gem range.

>

> *Mount outfits, per Illconcieved Was Na

 

This is pretty much what I was expecting as well. I was pretty shocked at that first jackal skin.

[Hitman.5829]

2000 gems if and only if there is a dragon skin for griffon.

[Fade.5904]

2000 gems currently cost 528 gold, that's less than say most chaos weapon skins.

Just to put it in perspective.

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @Astralporing.1957 said:

> > @Blaeys.3102 said:

> > I think Mike OBrien's post about this on reddit summarized the issue well. While we, as consumers, look at it from a money for value perspective, Anet has to take a bigger point of view.

> Nah, not bigger. Their. They're trying to maximize their income using any trick available that isn't illegal, without thinking about their players. Just like EA.

>

>

 

That’s a very negative way to look at things and it’s making a lot of assumptions.

 

As far as EA, those heroes could be earned through normal play. The RNG on the loot boxes only impacted those that wanted to bypass playing the game to earn them. Unlike those heroes though, mount skins offer no advantage to players as they’re purely cosmetic.

[Ayakaru.6583]

The two unique skins i would pay 1200-1500 for but nt more. Most of the mountgate mounts are so basic 400 gems is fine, but the Skimmers are all identical with a tiny effect of pattern

[Silmar Alech.4305]

200 gems. That makes 2,50 Euro. For a few pixel, and considering your mount already shows some skin, this seems a reasonable price for me.

Considering the huge amount of skins available in the shop (not only for mounts), there is no scarcity, so 800 or 1000 for any skin is grossly overpriced. 2000 is atrocious. If any skins were available for 200, be it for mount or for clothing, I would even buy one or two or perhaps more. But for 800+, that is 10+ Euro, no chance. Not a single one.

[DarcShriek.5829]

> @TwilightSoul.9048 said:

> > @Ayrilana.1396 said:

> > > @TwilightSoul.9048 said:

> > > > @pah.4931 said:

> > > > Just to reiterate...

> > > >

> > > > "Willing to pay" and "is profitable for GW2 to continue developing this game" are two entirely different concepts. They know what they're doing...

> > >

> > > Yes, but you also have to consider if having "a few" people buy a skin for 2000 is actually better than having "a bunch" of people who would buy the skin for, let's say, 500.

> > > I'm sure people are buying the new Raptor Skin for 2000 but what if you could multiply the number of people who would buy the skin by 4 just by decreasing it's price to 800? Then you'd get 1200 Gems more!

> > > Honestly I think the real reason behind the huge price tag is that "small" amounts of Gems are easily acquired with spending Gold whereas large amounts of gems are more likely to be purchased with actual money. Which is of course a reasonable consideration. But honestly I think in an MMoRPG the goal should always be to appeal to as many of your players as possible.

> >

> > I’m pretty sure they ran through the numbers and determined that the current price point was the best.

>

> What numbers exactly did they run through? I can see the reasoning but I doubt it was the correct, or best, decision. We're running **some** numbers as well right now and even though we have a very small sample size it seems to me that 2000 might not be the ideal price.

 

They've probably taken an extensive look at the industry and employ people that have industry experience. Those two factors make their data much more reliable than a non scientific forum poll with a only a few responses. $20.00 is bank breaking to mature adults. Most can afford it quite easily. One does not need to be a whale to spend $20.00 on a game.

[SkyShroud.2865]

They following after other MMOs which focus on selling cosmetic at high prices. However, the thing is those MMOs do not have as high population as gw2. Following blindly is...not wise.

[Ohoni.6057]

As a single poll this is a tough question. I put 1500 because I don't see myself paying more than $20 for a single skin, but 1500 would have to be a GREAT skin that I really loved. I do NOT think that is reasonable for most of the skins in the 30-pack. I've said before and I'll say again, I think that 200-300 gems would be perfectly fair pricing for half of the skins in that pack, 800 for *a few* of them, and then 600 for the rest. I do think that *most* skins released should be in the 400-600 range.

 

I think the real problem here is not that they choose to release *a* skin that was 2000 gems, it was that the ONLY skins they've released have been 2000 gems, so players have no options available but to buy those two skins, whether they like them or not, or to throw money at a gambling mechanism.

[SlateSloan.3654]

200 gems not more.

[Matick.4132]

> @pah.4931 said:

> Just to reiterate...

>

> "Willing to pay" and "is profitable for GW2 to continue developing this game" are two entirely different concepts. They know what they're doing...

 

Said a reporter on **Goldman Sachs** just moments before the whole world-economy got flushed down the toilet.

 

Saying _'they know what they're doing'_ is by far THE most deadly assumption ever made by mankind! :p

[ShiningSquirrel.3751]

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.

[Thelgar.7214]

I'm not a fan of anything that makes me buy more than 800 in gems with cash or 400/800 in gold-to-gem conversion.

[Taelac.7036]

I could maybe see going up to 1000 gems for something that had unique vocalizations or idle animations, but I really don't see any reason to spend more on mountfits* than outfits or glider skins.

 

*Credit for neologism to @"Illconceived Was Na.9781"

[Frostfang.5109]

I compare with the Widding attire and what u got there (10 designs actually). One exclusive mount skin is worth the same I think!

[Vulf.3098]

My big problem with 2000 gems is that there is no gem purchase equivalent.

Either add a 2000 gem purchase option or knock the mount price down to 1600.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

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.

[Ronek.7408]

I wouldn't have an issue with the 2000 gem price if the mounts being sold were 'rare' once in a blue moon skins. Currently every mount has been locked behind the same ridiculous cost, and In terms we can't get these mounts unless we either gold farm or spend $20 and above.

 

_**What ever happened to playing a game for its content**_, and being rewarding for you know.. playing the game. Why can't some mount skins be linked to low percentage drops of raid bosses, or new world bosses/elites? I'm actually shocked that nobody has brought this up, surely it would be more rewarding to receive a 2% drop chance mount skin, than buying a mount skin that anyone else can simply buy??

 

Just to summarize: I wouldn't have a problem if we were given the choice between earning mount skins through past/future content, and/or simply buying them.

Because as it stands, we are locked behind a gem wall in order to get any kind of mount skin. This isn't the case for armor/weapon skins, so why should mount skins be treated any differently? I seriously question anet's motives, as it seem's like if you aren't willing to feed them money, or grind 500g in time for the mounts expiry, you won't be getting any mount skin progression.

 

[Biff.5312]

If these results can be taken as typical, then as long as people stick to their decision and don't go ahead and purchase above what they say they're willing to, then it's clear that the 800-1000 range would sell far better than any 2000 gem item.

 

But who knows if people really mean it. I'm sure the actual sales dictate pricing.

[Tachenon.5270]

I might go 1000 for something I reeeaaally liked. Like a really nice pterodactyl griffon skin, as mentioned by someone in another mount skin-related thread. Otherwise, 800 tops. 400 would be great. I'd probably buy more at that price than any other, because I'd be thinking, 'well, okay, I got this one, but I like this one, too, and it's only another 400... eh, why not?' Whereas at 800 I'd be like, 'well, hmm, do I really, really want this other one? Meh.' I'd only go over 1000 gems for a Tier 6 TOS Connie.

[Sir Vincent III.1286]

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.

[Oglaf.1074]

> @"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".

[Rauderi.8706]

I liken mount skins to outfits, so I'd pay up to the usual 700-800 gems for it.