Mike O'Briens's new response to high priced Mount skins

[Zoltar MacRoth.7146]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @Sylvyn.4750 said:

> > Since it's just a skin, the cost doesn't bother me that much as it does nothing to improve functionality. However, for the sake of honesty, Anet needs to quit using the word "microtransaction" for everything and start using "macrotransaction" as appropriate, based on the cost of these items relative to the cost of an expansion or an average monthly subscription rate. WoW charges what, about $15/mo still? So, a microtransaction should be less than $15, or someone may as well be playing a subscription based game instead. A microtransaction should also be less than 50% of the cost of an expansion, so there again we're talking around a $15 cutoff before something should be labeled a macrotransaction. I think most would agree that $10 or less is where microtransactions are generally found.

>

> It's just semantics, tho.

>

> And if you elaborate on the definition of "micro" (people do it for the term "gambling" and "loot boxes" so why not "microtransactions!?), a "microaggression" is used to indicate an aggression that's indirect, subtle or unintentional, we can expand some of that use to make "microtransaction" to be indirect (from your wallet/gold to gems), subtle (from faintly affecting your overall effectiveness in the game) or unintentional (the value individuals place on certain cosmetic items skew their perception of the difference between "want" and "need" or "commodity" and "luxury" ).

 

Or if you look at it the other way, these "microtransactions" are kind of like microaggressions... ;D

[Kal Spiro.9745]

I've been waiting for this explanation since the forged hound. It makes no sense to me. Why would I spend 2000 gems on one skin for one mount? Yes, it's a whole new model. It's not just a reskin, but that's not a good enough answer for me. Outfits are 800, and that's four to six models between the genders and races. If the mount skins were 800 I would probably buy them all, just cause. At 2000 I will likely never buy even one. That's not good business. They say it's a taste thing, but it's not just a taste thing, it's a value for the price. One skin for one mount isn't valuable enough for that price.

[lynspottery.6529]

> @Branwen.8741 said:

> I came to GW2 from a P2W game over four years ago, where I played with people who poured thousands of dollars into their characters just to PVP. To put it into perspective, one person in a group I played with spent upwards of 20k. The gears and upgrades this kind of money was spent on were needed to stay on top and be one of the best. One simply could not compete with the almighty dollar even with great playing skills. I wasn't going to spend that kind of money to play a game and have been so very thankful that GW2 provides a way for me to farm, craft, and sell whatever I need to make purchases I want, as well as a way to buy gems and treat myself sometimes.

>

> I will support ANET when I can and purchase the little things here and there that I want, because at the end of the day, I want there to be a game with expansions and new content to play around with that do not require me to go get a second job to fund my addiction. At least these higher priced flashy skins are not necessary to have a good experience within the game.

>

> Many thanks and love to ANET!

>

 

I agree with your sentiments exactly. I've never been a fan of the p2w philosophy and I much prefer the way GW2 is setup because I will purchase things I want. I like the fact that I don't have to have anything to play the game. I have worked in-game to earn my legendary weapon Kudzu, and it was not a quick or easy journey, however, it was extremely satisfying once completed.

 

If I want something gear- or weapon-wise, I can simply farm for mats and craft what I need since I have the crafting maxed out for what my characters might need. I see no problem with Anet posting items in their gem store, because not everyone wants the same thing. Besides, we can exchange in-game gold for gems anytime and still succeed where we choose.

[Nemmar.8491]

Really, this would be fine with an optional sub that gets access to the cosmetics.

[Carighan.6758]

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> Consider the pricing for weapon/armour skins and outfits previously and this is a gigantic increase in price because... reasons?

 

Because players will/do pay it? I mean that's all the reason needed. If income per dev work needed is better at 2000 gems than at 800, they'll do that. As soon as it'd be better at 800, they'd do that instead.

 

[Tenrai Senshi.2017]

I understand the need for price balance. If I had to take a guess, I'd say sometimes lower price items don't sell as well because when the gem price gets too low, the option of converting gold to gems becomes more viable. But in the same breath, if it gets too high, then people don't want to spend given the real world value they apply to the price of gems.

 

As always, balance is key. But maybe a real solution for promoting sales and increasing revenue is not to make gem store items more expensive, but rather to change the structure of how the gold to gems conversion works. Perhaps you'd want to create a situation where spending money for many becomes more appealing than converting gold, even for lower priced items. I'll give an example of my way of thinking....

 

Step 1: Let's say you made an item that used to cost 1600 gems, cost only 800 gems instead. Suddenly the allure is much higher because of the increased accessibility, but at the same time, achieving that with gold becomes easier, so a lot of people use gold instead of spending.

 

Step 2: Double the gold to gems conversion rate. With that, the overall gold costs of the original item have not changed, but because the real money price is lower, suddenly the appeal of buying with money vs buying with gold is higher. It's a case of comparing real value with time spent in game earning something. If the balance of the perception of value for time spent vs money spent shifts more in favor of spending money, then perhaps we'd see different spending trends.

 

Anyway, I'm not an expert on the matter, so I'm not sure if my way of thinking would actually work in a practical situation, but I do think simply increasing prices on its own is not the best way to approach the situation, especially when you've created a trend with pricing up until now that the new prices contrast with quite sharply.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @Rococo.8347 said:

> 1. so what exactly do the expansions 'pay for' in terms of development if its never referred to as an income stream, which it is?

> 2 why arnt they considering subs if they are as truly reliant on transactions as they claim, especially when their current position deliberately stops catering to the majority of their player base - who arnt whales. Or charge more for expansions?

> 3. doesn't a 'micro transaction' become a 'MACRO transaction' when its 75% of the cost of the expansion?

 

1. Expansions pay for future expansions, the gem store pays for the living world

2. The problem they have here is that when they allow players to get the skin they want, at a low price, players buy it with gold instead. That's why they create the idea of bundles and rng and all that. MO even said that their data shows that individual items aren't selling very well, and that's to be expected, someone that wants 1 mount skin out of the 30 in the license will use gold to buy it. Instead of a sub, they should think of a way to decrease the value of gold to gems so less players use gold to buy gems. This is what is holding the game back financially. And why we get rng and bundle deals.

3. Micro transactions used to be small payments, after all the definition of the word is a transaction using micro-payments. Then some genius (or not) invented virtual currencies, like Gems. Players are more likely to spend virtual currencies than they are to spend cash directly, that's because 2000 gems doesn't have a monetary value on its own. You can't convert gems to cash, therefore they give the illusion of being worthless, when obviously they are not.

[Zedek.8932]

I boil this thread down to:

 

## I can not afford something totally optional and now I cause mad beef.

 

Yep, threads like this are that simple. Even though many would not admit it.

Why?

 

_If you can afford it, you buy it.

If you can afford it, but you don't like the items offered, you don't create and upvote those threads.

If you can afford it, but you think it's too expensive, you just don't buy it._

 

If you can afford a shiny and it reaches a certain threshold, then you buy it.

If not, something's not right in that math: Either you can not shell out the money and are upset or you don't like said item enough in the first place, but why do you bother to bring up strawman agruments - like the pricing of it?

 

I heard so many strawman arguments here, like "I can buy it but the price is too high". Why are you making a fuzz of it when you are basically saying "I can buy it but I can't". Then usually comes the "...it's about the principle" argument. Then don't buy it.

 

This goes on and on with free or quasi-free game:

People on a freebie complain about not getting mounts. See bolded part at the top of my post.

People with only HoT complain about not getting mounts. See bolded part of the top of my post.

People with neither expansion complain about not having the elite specializations. See bolded part of the top of my post.

People see an "apparently" nice item but complain they don't get it because they refuse to pay for it. See bolded part of the top of my post.

 

Here is the truth, guys:

No payment, no water. No payment, no electricity. No payment, no groceries. No payment, no mountskins.

Anything else, references to RNG, lottery, EA Games, all that -> See bolded part of the top of my post.

 

Excelsior.

 

[shadowpass.4236]

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > @Greyraven.4258 said:

> > Seems like a reasonable approach, I have seen so much worse business models than this...I just don't get what all the kerfuffle is about

>

> The pricing, obviously. 2000 Gems is like 30+ USD - for a single skin.

>

> Consider the pricing for weapon/armour skins and outfits previously and this is a gigantic increase in price because... reasons?

 

Think about it like this... you can buy the expansions, or you can buy a mount skin. Hard choice, eh? ._.

[sigur.9453]

> @Zedek.8932 said:

> I boil this thread down to:

>

> ## I can not afford something totally optional and now I cause mad beef.

>

> Yep, threads like this are that simple. Even though many would not admit it.

> Why?

>

> _If you can afford it, you buy it.

> If you can afford it, but you don't like the items offered, you don't create and upvote those threads.

> If you can afford it, but you think it's too expensive, you just don't buy it._

>

> If you can afford a shiny and it reaches a certain threshold, then you buy it.

> If not, something's not right in that math: Either you can not shell out the money and are upset or you don't like said item enough in the first place, but why do you bother to bring up strawman agruments - like the pricing of it?

>

> I heard so many strawman arguments here, like "I can buy it but the price is too high". Why are you making a fuzz of it when you are basically saying "I can buy it but I can't". Then usually comes the "...it's about the principle" argument. Then don't buy it.

>

> This goes on and on with free or quasi-free game:

> People on a freebie complain about not getting mounts. See bolded part at the top of my post.

> People with only HoT complain about not getting mounts. See bolded part of the top of my post.

> People with neither expansion complain about not having the elite specializations. See bolded part of the top of my post.

> People see an "apparently" nice item but complain they don't get it because they refuse to pay for it. See bolded part of the top of my post.

>

> Here is the trugh, guys:

> No payment, no water. No payment, no electricity. No payment, no groceries. No payment, no mountskins.

> Anything else, references to RNG, lottery, EA Games, all that -> See bolded part of the top of my post.

>

> Excelsior.

>

 

I find it interesting that you compare as you said yourself, OPTIONAL skins to water, electricity and groceries. But i guess im just nitpicking.

Excelsior.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @Bunter.3795 said:

> > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > > @Greyraven.4258 said:

> > > Seems like a reasonable approach, I have seen so much worse business models than this...I just don't get what all the kerfuffle is about

> >

> > The pricing, obviously. 2000 Gems is like 30+ USD - for a single skin.

> >

> > Consider the pricing for weapon/armour skins and outfits previously and this is a gigantic increase in price because... reasons?

>

> Please get your math right, 2,000 gems is $25.00. Always has been since the game launched.

Only on US servers. On EU ones it is ~30 USD (since it's 25 euro)

 

 

[Vayne.8563]

> @shadowpass.4236 said:

> > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > > @Greyraven.4258 said:

> > > Seems like a reasonable approach, I have seen so much worse business models than this...I just don't get what all the kerfuffle is about

> >

> > The pricing, obviously. 2000 Gems is like 30+ USD - for a single skin.

> >

> > Consider the pricing for weapon/armour skins and outfits previously and this is a gigantic increase in price because... reasons?

>

> Think about it like this... you can buy the expansions, or you can buy a mount skin. Hard choice, eh? ._.

 

Well almost true. You have to buy an expansion to use a mount skin. Not really a point to buy the mount skin without the expansion.

 

Of course, I bought a printer a few years back and in the interim, I've spent ten times the amount of the cost of the printer on ink. In fact, I bought a DVD player for about $30 at one point and spent a lot more money on DVDs.

 

So this comparison is pretty much meaningless.

[Ayumi Spender.1082]

> @Vayne.8563 said:

> > @shadowpass.4236 said:

> > > @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > > > @Greyraven.4258 said:

> > > > Seems like a reasonable approach, I have seen so much worse business models than this...I just don't get what all the kerfuffle is about

> > >

> > > The pricing, obviously. 2000 Gems is like 30+ USD - for a single skin.

> > >

> > > Consider the pricing for weapon/armour skins and outfits previously and this is a gigantic increase in price because... reasons?

> >

> > Think about it like this... you can buy the expansions, or you can buy a mount skin. Hard choice, eh? ._.

>

> Well almost true. You have to buy an expansion to use a mount skin. Not really a point to buy the mount skin without the expansion.

>

> Of course, I bought a printer a few years back and in the interim, I've spent ten times the amount of the cost of the printer on ink. In fact, I bought a DVD player for about $30 at one point and spent a lot more money on DVDs.

>

> So this comparison is pretty much meaningless.

 

Then again there's 2 expansions.

If one let's say had PoF and then had to decide on, "Do I want the Mecha Ram? Do I want the Chicken Peacock? Do I want 4 maps, a glider, an elite traits for all classes, raids (if you like that), Access to Living World Season 3 (even though having to pay extra for those unless you were playing during the time of the releases), and certain items/weapons/legendaries/etc? Hm... decisions..."

[Korval.3751]

I am on the fence about this. On the one hand, I think it is pricey. On the other, I want to help fund this game. GW2 remains the last MMO I play.

 

I know it cannot be cheap to produce content at the rate Anet is doing. I know of no other MMO that goes from a Seasons 3 finale to New Expansion to Season 4 Opener in the span of about six months. That is just crazy! People forget that the DLC stuff is free if they just log in to claim it. I am not aware of any MMO that produces content like this.

 

However, I do wish that the price of the "cool" stuff would drop. It does seem strange that a single mount skin, being vanity and optional, is 66% of a new expansion. I think $5-10 would be a better price point with $15-20 reserved for fantastic vanity stuff. Perhaps a charity skin with a portion of the proceeds going to a good cause would be nice (Blizzard does this every year in WOW).

 

Bare this in mind. Nothing in the Gem Store is core gameplay mechanic like what EA did in SWBF2 and suffered a huge justified backlash for it. Anet has always been careful to sell vanity and cosmetic stuff only. Even the Black Lion Chest falls into this group regardless of its RNG nature.

[Korval.3751]

> @Nemmar.8491 said:

> Really, this would be fine with an optional sub that gets access to the cosmetics.

 

You have an optional sub in the form of buying gems whenever. I do it almost every LWS update. My way of saying "Thanks, Anet! And some funds to cover others who don't purchase gems."

[Korval.3751]

MO:

> 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.

 

I work for a large E-commerce company and that makes a ton of sense and cents. There's a weird price point. Item priced too low are seen as not worth much or too common. Too high and it prices people out. Looks like Anet figured out the sweet spot that works to keep the game funded.

[Korval.3751]

> @PopeUrban.2578 said:

> Translation:

>

> **"We understand that you, our customer base, does not think we are providing you products you want at a price you want to pay for them. In stead of changing our business strategy to address customer concerns, let me tell you why you're wrong, and why we're using a free to play business model while still locking content behind a series of paywalls."**

>

> Here's the thing MO. This reliance on microtransactions is self imposed. It is a system that failed you so spectacularly that you had to start supplementing it with paid content updates in the form of expansions. Then you released a lightweight expansion that you finished later after nickel and diming a minority of your player base. Then you did it again.

>

Do you seriously not understand how much time and money it cost to produce an expansion of POF's size? And you want it for free?

 

In case you forgot or did not know Anet introduced microtransactions in Guild Wars 1 and the expansions long before anyone even knew what they were called. And they did it correctly from the beginning. It's always been for vanity and convenience stuff. In GW1 you could go out into the world and gather all the elite skills or you could buy the elite skills packs per expansion for $9.99. They've been reliant on microtransactions since the beginning. It's only because of the generosity of people who actually buy gems with real cash that the game can continue releasing FREE DLC content. You should try seeing the bigger picture.

[Matick.4132]

> @"Cragga the Eighty Third.6015" said:

> > @Haishao.6851 said:

> > Maybe they should slack down on the voiced dialogue.

> > If they actually made the UI good, they could have a lot of it just as text instead. In the end it would cost much less than hiring 3 voice actors for every lines.

>

> No no no. I love the dialogue,

 

Agreed.

'Cragga the Eighty Third' <- how, what... dunno! XD

 

Haishao, not to flame you.

_But are you outta your mind?!_ :o

 

The whole storyline (not arguing plot holes or why I'm able to kill gods and dragons, but still being slayed by some zombie down in the woods ^^) is awesome. It would actually use even MORE voice actors, since over the time of playing you'll kinda notice similarities between them. More diversity would be great.

 

The UI, I like it. It's one of the best UIs I've seen so far.

Yes, you have flashy stuff like Destiny or so, but this is a whole different genre and time. GW2 is a couple of yrs old AND it plays in somewhat medieval timeline. I'd like to have a personal UI based on my race (Asura tech is always stunning), but hey. ANet still isn't the biggest studio of all times and I'd rather see them focusing on storyline/gameplay/whatnot, then just make it flashy.

 

Speaking of flashy:

The way they're going with the new mount skins is somewhat too much WoW for me.

Too flashy, too much colours etc.

What I always loved about GW2 was, that it focused on somewhat kinda 'realism' rather then go full colour palette on the fantasy-theme, like WoW does (which looks childish imho).

 

:)

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @Zedek.8932 said:

> I boil this thread down to:

>

> ## I can not afford something totally optional and now I cause mad beef.

>

> Yep, threads like this are that simple. Even though many would not admit it.

> Why?

>

> _If you can afford it, you buy it.

> If you can afford it, but you don't like the items offered, you don't create and upvote those threads.

> If you can afford it, but you think it's too expensive, you just don't buy it._

>

> If you can afford a shiny and it reaches a certain threshold, then you buy it.

> If not, something's not right in that math: Either you can not shell out the money and are upset or you don't like said item enough in the first place, but why do you bother to bring up strawman agruments - like the pricing of it?

>

> I heard so many strawman arguments here, like "I can buy it but the price is too high". Why are you making a fuzz of it when you are basically saying "I can buy it but I can't". Then usually comes the "...it's about the principle" argument. Then don't buy it.

>

> This goes on and on with free or quasi-free game:

> People on a freebie complain about not getting mounts. See bolded part at the top of my post.

> People with only HoT complain about not getting mounts. See bolded part of the top of my post.

> People with neither expansion complain about not having the elite specializations. See bolded part of the top of my post.

> People see an "apparently" nice item but complain they don't get it because they refuse to pay for it. See bolded part of the top of my post.

>

> Here is the truth, guys:

> No payment, no water. No payment, no electricity. No payment, no groceries. No payment, no mountskins.

> Anything else, references to RNG, lottery, EA Games, all that -> See bolded part of the top of my post.

>

> Excelsior.

>

 

Funny how you talk about strawman arguments when telling everyone what their opinion really is.

[Thelgar.7214]

Spooky Mounts Pack - 1600 gems - 320 gems each. Cheap because seasonal and possibly lesser utility? Will this carry over into holiday weapon skins and such?

Random Mounts - 400 gems each.

Individual mounts - 2000 gems each.

Would be nice if Anet would just give us a straight answer as to whether we'll see mount skins in the 800-ish gem range or if 2000 gems is going to be the standard for individual mounts. If some mounts are going to be expensive and some reasonable, then that isn't that bad. But if our only options going forward are holiday mounts, random mounts or expensive mounts, that sucks.

[LanfearShadowflame.3189]

> @serialkicker.5274 said:

> > @LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

> > > @Branwen.8741 said:

> > > I came to GW2 from a P2W game over four years ago, where I played with people who poured thousands of dollars into their characters just to PVP. To put it into perspective, one person in a group I played with spent upwards of 20k. The gears and upgrades this kind of money was spent on were needed to stay on top and be one of the best. One simply could not compete with the almighty dollar even with great playing skills. I wasn't going to spend that kind of money to play a game and have been so very thankful that GW2 provides a way for me to farm, craft, and sell whatever I need to make purchases I want, as well as a way to buy gems and treat myself sometimes.

> > >

> > > I will support ANET when I can and purchase the little things here and there that I want, because at the end of the day, I want there to be a game with expansions and new content to play around with that do not require me to go get a second job to fund my addiction. At least these higher priced flashy skins are not necessary to have a good experience within the game.

> > >

> > > Many thanks and love to ANET!

> > >

> >

> > I've played the kind of game you're talking about as well. Where people dump $1000 or more _per week_ into the game to stay "the best." Absolutely mind boggling. So yeah, to me a completely cosmetic skin for $25 isn't worth really blinking at. Granted I'm not necessarily fond of it. I'd like the skin, but its not going to kill me not to have it.

>

> Does it start with Sky and end with forge? ::dizzy:

 

Haha no, not that one. I've actually played several. Most are mobile or browser based (I am just a glutton for punishment I guess)

 

> @Freakshow.1809 said:

> > @LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

> > > @Freakshow.1809 said:

> > > It's obvious they don't take that much effort to produce a nice looking skin,

> >

> > This isn't necessarily true. I'm sure they were cognizant of the fact that skins would be monetized and probably had been building skins for the BLTP well before PoF launched.

>

> Thats a good point. Now that you mention it, I also theorise that the reason they are overcharging for mounts was because they undersold the expansion purposely because they probably thought they were going to make more money off of mount skins in the long run.

>

 

Possible, but I don't necessarily agree with that reasoning. We don't know how much more work it takes to make a mount skin vs an outfit or a glider. Additionally how much work is it to do a complete reskin like the Reforged Hound and the Peacock Raptor (complete with distinct sounds, animations, etc) vs reskins like those in the Adoption Kit? Those are 400 gems a piece, which is right on par with gliders. They are also much more simple - basic recolors and minor tweaks to the models. The 2k gem ones are _almost_ different creatures in their reworks of the base skeleton. Its all about the work put into it, imo. Others may not see it this way, but to me this is no different than the beadwork ornament and candle covers I make. The very basic covers are $5 or $10 (depends on the size of the object its going over), the more elaborate ones range upwards of $40-$45. Because they require more time, more effort, more materials. With mounts a basic reskin just requires an artist, full reskins with animations, sounds, etc, require other departments - developers to map animations, sound techs, etc.

[Shirlias.8104]

> @Thelgar.7214 said:

> Spooky Mounts Pack - 1600 gems - 320 gems each. Cheap because seasonal and possibly lesser utility? Will this carry over into holiday weapon skins and such?

> Random Mounts - 400 gems each.

> Individual mounts - 2000 gems each.

> Would be nice if Anet would just give us a straight answer as to whether we'll see mount skins in the 800-ish gem range or if 2000 gems is going to be the standard for individual mounts. If some mounts are going to be expensive and some reasonable, then that isn't that bad. But if our only options going forward are holiday mounts, random mounts or expensive mounts, that sucks.

 

Err, Random mounts Pack was 9600, which is exactly 320 gems per mount as the spooky pack.

It is obvious that outside the bundle mounts cost more ( 25% more ).

 

Individual mounts do have work behind them if compared to recolor or slightly reskins, and there's no disagree about this.

About the price i am not sure ( as i am not sure about the effort needed in order to create an outfit, an amor or a mount. Which requires more time i mean ).

[maddoctor.2738]

> @Korval.3751 said:

> MO:

> > 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.

>

> I work for a large E-commerce company and that makes a ton of sense and cents. There's a weird price point. Item priced too low are seen as not worth much or too common. Too high and it prices people out. Looks like Anet figured out the sweet spot that works to keep the game funded.

 

I'd want to know how much revenue they get from players converting gems to gold

[Lilyanna.9361]

People seem to be to be blinded by the facts of /subjective/ opinion.

 

What is worse to you, may not be worse to someone else. This of it this way. Let us look at a worse off game for wears: Wildstar.

 

Wildstar is currently in a much dire situation. Their population is much, much smaller but they have about (more or less) the same prices as Anet. Now also take in the fact this is ran by the same company, most likely has the same expectations.

 

Now, your question may be, what makes this game stay afloat. Technically it's a 'dead' game in a sense no? It should not be making money anymore. But it is. It's still afloat. And this is from only about a year or two.

 

Now, looking at Anet. They have much more going for them. Mind you, they are not huge like Blizzard, but they are not small like Wildstar. They're are about..in the middle I'd say. The game is basically funding for itself even with a small community.

 

So with data from another game and probably looking around GW2, NCSOFT is probably on the same thought line here. If you have a stable enough (maybe not in our terms, but in their terms) population where it basically funds for itself the game is technically successful.

 

At the end of the day, fun is subjective. What may not be fun to you, may be fun to me and so on. This game is a collectors, RPera, fashionistas, and farmers dream, but for someone who is PVP nut, casual, nitpicker, or someone who is simply not interested in any of this stuff it is clearly not for them.

 

They have their numbers, they have explained themselves multiple times (even if people don't research or look), they have their data to show something works and there has been a clear shift in hiring. So at the end of the day being rude, sarcastic, wagging your finger or being a mom to them doesn't solve anything. Numbers provided answers, you did not.

 

Ranting won't get you anywhere because numbers spoke the loudest. Data and facts spoke the loudest. The community has made a choice. So, just sit on that and remember it nice and well.

 

P.S. If you truly don't like it, you could, you know just move on like any normal adult and not pay. Someone will certainly do it and there's nothing wrong with that. Or leave too, because that's your choice and it doesn't harm anyone who wishes to invest in their product

[Lanhelin.3480]

> 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.

 

"Individual style items will have limited sales" - so you sell them via a rng-model to make sure that as many of them are sold as possible to circumvent expected lower sellings because of buying-decisions based on "individual taste" only? That's pretty perfidious.

Your "data" shows that "higher-priced flashy" and "lower-average-price-per-item" (but as a whole high-priced too) work, so only expensive items work? In what way do they work ... oh, to "generate meaningful revenue" ofc, ok. But mount-skins are not like other skins, because every PoF-player sooner or later gets most of the basic skins. There are plenty of Character-skins in the game to allow character customization with huge variety without the need to ever buy one in the shop. But mount-skins are shop-only and either random or overpriced. This was a wrong decision, imho.

 

> 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.

 

You should not aim to have the "lowest-priced microtransactions" (although micro usually means low, small, tiny, meaningful revenue by mass-sellings), just average and reasonable.

 

I'll tell you what makes it always hard for me to buy gems with real money (though I prefer doing so, because I'm really bad at generating gold ingame): your pricing-model doesn't fulfill my expectations as a "trained customer". As a trained customer I expect to get a bit more when I pay more. In your model instead every gem amount costs the same, there is no difference between the €10 offer and the higher-priced ones. I expect to have an advantage when buying the higher priced one and a lot more advantage when buying the highest one. Currently there is no difference between buying 800 gems 10 times or 8000 one time. No rebate nor increase of gem amount. Why do the different offers even exist? In all p2p models the monthly price gets slightly reduced if I decide to buy three or six months or even a year. So I get the feeling it's actually worth spending more money. But this is not true for gems. And that's why I always struggle with buying them and in the past also often decided not to buy any at all. Your pricing-model makes it really easy for me not to buy gems regularly or a lot of them.