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

[Swagger.1459]

MO provided a very professional response, and I totally support his approach on this matter. Also, $25 or 500 gold for 2k gems... is a perfect price for these fabulous mount skins!

 

Keep up the good work arenanet!

[Conncept.7638]

> @Maljas.6948 said:

> Seems completely reasonable to me.

>

> You guys need to understand that they need to make money to keep this game alive. I'd rather have RNG skins than to see this game shut down due to lack of revenue. If you want to increase the cost, they can increase the cost. All of this stuff is cosmetic, so it has no effect on game-play. There shouldn't have been a "backlash" in the first place and he shouldn't have apologized either.

 

A very small but very loud minority are complaining about the $20 mounts, what most players actually had a problem with was gambling and they are completely justified. An honest business works one way and one way only, they list a price for their item or service, you pay that price, and you get the item or service. End of transaction, the only reason for sales to be more complicated than that, is someone trying to obfuscate dishonest business practices.

 

Gambling is dishonest, without exception, and they haven't "apologized" for it yet, they crapped out a PR statement that basically admitted to no wrong doing, blamed their customers, and didn't put them under any obligation to be more honest in the future.

[Majic.4801]

I just want to be angry.

[Kapax.3801]

What happens is that they are not seeing it from the perspective of a company ...

 

Its logic of selling expensive but little is as true as selling cheap and in large quantities ...

Basically he says that they already tried to sell the items cheaply but they did not generate much income, but when selling expensive the articles are giving him the numbers ...

This can be explained (in part) because the cheaper an item in the gem store is, the easier it will be for people to use gold from the game to buy it instead of real money, instead if it is more expensive only people will buy it. is really willing to spend real money in the game, and apparently the latter is what gives you profits.

[ReaverKane.7598]

So many words, and no answers.

Like before its MO saying we don't care, give us money.

While i doubt he's even making any money. Being greedy doesn't bring profit, being smart does. And i hope that he can keep financing the game on the backs of 1% of the games population.

 

I know forum polls are hardly representative, but that's the only metrics that really exist. So according to https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/18304/how-much-would-you-be-willing-to-pay-for-a-mount-skin

 

15% of the voters say they'd pay 2000 gems (if you pay 2000+ you'd pay only 2000)

23% of the voters would pay 1500 gems (again those willing to pay 2000 wouldn't start crying that it's only 1500)

51% would pay 1000 gems

100% of the voters would pay 800 gems (that doesn't mean that 100% of the population would pay 800 gems, and the poll has no lower options)

 

Extrapolating those votes you can see that if the price was 1000 gems they'd probably sell three times more mounts than for 2000 gems. And you know what isn't 3x 1000? 2000.

At 800 gems would be around 4-5 times the volume of sales compared to 2000, and you know what's 4x 800? Correct NOT 2000, even if it was only 3x the sales at 2000, it would make up for the difference.

 

So by being greedy they are effectively losing money, because they have a lower volume of sales.

 

What this answer shows is that what they want is the same as EA is doing in BF2. Wait for it to blow out and for 2000 gem costs to become "normal" and people start buying. It's up to the community to show resilience to these tactics and not be lulled into accepting this stuff as the "new normal".

[FrizzFreston.5290]

That they need to make money to keep adding to the game is just pointing out the obvious. The way they are making money can at least be discussed. Some things work for some people while they don't for others. Doesn't seem like complaining to me.

In fact, I would say that knowing what makes players support or not support the game with monetary transactions is very important.

 

[Daddicus.6128]

Mr. O'Brien,

 

Thank you for your openness on this. I wasn't one of the people targeted, since I don't buy skins. But, observing all of the flack about it, it seems to me the problem is one of scale rather than process. 30 skins is just too many.

 

Why not (in the future), do the same thing, but only 5-10 skins at a time? Internally, you could still have 30 skins targeted, but release them in smaller groups. So, instead of one pile of 30 skins all at once, customers might see 5 skins a month for 6 months (or whatever).

 

Then, the other thing is two ways to buy: Some customers revel in the random gambling process. But, others want a specific skin. If they're marketable on the BLTP, and the rarity is the same, it should balance out as people trade them on the Post.

 

On the other hand, some people want one specific skin, and they want it now. So, offer a second set of non-random items for the specific skins (for more gems).

 

If the rarities are not the same, then there would be some pricing issues, but it should all wash out in the end.

 

???

[Freakshow.1809]

> @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.

 

[Grimslade.6728]

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > @Loosifah.4738 said:

> > For kittens sake people. It's just re-skins for mounts. It's not NEEDED for anything other than looking flashy. If you want one pay for it; if not quit whining already.

> >

> > If you want to play the fashion wars with your mount pay for a skin. ITS. THAT. SIMPLE.

>

> And nobody argued otherwise. It is not what the issue is.

>

> Go strawman somewhere else.

 

> @Oglaf.1074 said:

> > @OriOri.8724 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?

> >

> > Its $25, not $30 **+** And its a 100% optional, cosmetic item. Having it will not, in any way shape or fashion, make your character better in the game.

>

> I'm not American, so I had to estimate.

>

> Secondly the cosmetic nature of Mountfits is irrelevant to the discussion we're having.

 

Hi Oglaf.1074, can you please define what the premise of this discussion is? All the posts seem to be based on opinion and conjecture; so, I am unable to define the premise. Is it the price of PoF compared to the price of in-game items on the gemstore? Is it about real money transactions in general? Is it about real money transactions in GW2 specifically? Is it about the price of the mount skins? Is it about the price of the mount skin versus the price of outfit and weapon skins? Is it about the impact of cosmetic items on the game? Is it about the business practices of ANet and NCSoft? Is it about how many players will buy mount skins versus not buying them? Is it about the amount of mount skins that have been released in a short period of time? Is it about insinuating that a person is a friend or fanboy of ANet because they don't have an issue with the price of mount skins? All of these ideas have been brought up in this single thread. Each one could be used as a premise and discussed in-depth.

 

I guess what I am trying to get at is your posts are 2 to 3 sentences and lack substance. You twice invalidate what others have said and insinuate that they should stay on topic. Yet, you don't really seem to be part of the discussion yourself, other than your first post. I believe invalidating someones comment without providing substantive reasoning for your response to them is the definition of strawman.

 

 

 

 

[Rococo.8347]

I just think that they have had options in the way they fund this game in the past and ways now that arnt being considered.

 

Personally I wouldn't have made vanilla GW2 free, I would have just given a generous trial, couldn't some of the drop off in sales a few months after Hot have been alleviated if they were still selling the original game in a bundle? They also could have charged more for PoF, I would have paid it if had been as content dense as I found HoT and replayable.

 

They could put a couple of skins in the game itself, or even just 4 channels as part of some treasure hunt meta, at this point although I am not keen I wouldnt be adverse to a sub if it meant expansions stopped being stunted and more end game pretties.

 

Look at the new raid exclusive legendary trinket, a game mode that Anet wants to keep exclusive and yet gates items like this to encourage people to play - a story mode and/or lower level version, that's what would encourage me to play, all of these decisions just don't feel like the best ones that could be made.

[nighthawke.3075]

> @Rococo.8347 said:

>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.

>(snip)

> 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.

> (snip)

>

 

This is the only part that i really have any comments i want to make about.

 

So, All of Living World & Live content development is funded through the Gem Store's "micro"transactions & then he clearly states that GW2's Gem Store isn't a pleasant experience to browse through... Uh why isn't it? This could be a problem with their business model. If Anet can't make the Store enjoyable people will be less likely to buy things, basically business 101.

 

This seems to me to be a fixable problem. He could redesign the Gem Store to be an enjoyable experience. One might even stay they need to redesign it. The way i see it is either Anet is incapable of making changes to a Gem Store they themselves created or they are unwilling to make those changes, either way it isn't an acceptable excuse. I'd like to believe that as a development studio they are capable of making changes or replacing any system or software they have themselves created, which leaves me at they don't want to and would rather just make the lazy sale rather than get people to want to buy the smaller things.

 

Maybe run a promotion like "buy X things get a mount license for free!" or "20% chance to "win" a BLC Key on any purchase!" just saying there are other options outside of RNG, Chase Whales or Fail.

[AliamRationem.5172]

> @Aye.8392 said:

> I probably won't buy a 2,000 gem skin, but as long as they keep up the current cadence and quality I will absolutely be buying the next expansion.

 

I intend to as well...assuming I'm still playing the game. Unfortunately, ANet's pricing structure leaves their admittedly talented development team struggling to produce much more than a bare skeleton of an expansion. I gladly purchase every Ultimate package expansion and purchase gems monthly as well. I'm not at all disappointed in the price of GW2. I simply want more of it.

 

I like this game better than WoW, but I wish it had WoW's development resources.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @Rococo.8347 said:

> I just think that they have had options in the way they fund this game in the past and ways now that arnt being considered.

>

> Personally I wouldn't have made vanilla GW2 free, I would have just given a generous trial, couldn't some of the drop off in sales a few months after Hot have been alleviated if they were still selling the original game in a bundle? They also could have charged more for PoF, I would have paid it if had been as content dense as I found HoT and replayable.

>

> They could put a couple of skins in the game itself, or even just 4 channels as part of some treasure hunt meta, at this point although I am not keen I wouldnt be adverse to a sub if it meant expansions stopped being stunted and more end game pretties.

>

> Look at the new raid exclusive legendary trinket, a game mode that Anet wants to keep exclusive and yet gates items like this to encourage people to play - a story mode and/or lower level version, that's what would encourage me to play, all of these decisions just don't feel like the best ones that could be made.

 

Yeah, if you think about it (and i have, especially of late) when give 2 choices Arena Net, mostly since HoT, usually takes the easy and lazy one out. Also the one that inflates the economy the most as well. They worry so much on the game economy, and their bottom line that they compromise the enjoyment of the game for it.

Like you said, PoF lacks a ton of content. People aren't demanding refunds because they know LS4 is there to pick up the slack (LS3 was the only thing that saved HoT from flopping Arena Net to the realm of Wildstar), but now they're asking for money to finance LS4 like PoF was a huge expansion full of content.

Don't get me wrong i liked it, liked the story, but because of the way Arena Net handles end-game, the expansion is short-lived.

There's basically nothing to do, which would be different, hadn't they dismissed dungeons in favor of fractals (the lazy solution). Fractals are convenient, don't need an interface on the map, it's all in a Hub, and they don't need to be big, and have ramifications like normal dungeons with the explorable paths, because where a dungeon would have to be standalone, a fractal is part of a whole, which requires less work. But also diminishes the game. Most end-game content is now disconnected from the game world. Although raids have physical entrances, i'm willing to bet that a lot of people have done the raid and don't know where the entrance is because there's a HUB.

And because Arena Net can't do balance, even in what content they release, they went from a freaking sprawling meta in ALL maps to barely any meta content. And in terms of rewards... Well... Nada.

 

I'm still holding judgement on the new Gift of Desert Mastery, but even it seems to rely on HoT meta rewards (which kinda defeats the purpose of having it in the game at all).

 

[Xibalbar.7459]

Guild Wars 2 has a high standart for not beeing a p2p game. I like it alot, i did not spend so much money like for other games in 6 months now over 3 years. I can exchange my gold to gems, what another fine service of anet is. So far its the best mmo i ever played with a great development behind it. I understand that they need to earn money without selling p2w elements in the shop. So let mounts and cosmetic be more expensiv. If i see a mount what fits for me, i will buy it with gems, no problem.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Silmar Alech.4305" said:

> Not unreasonable post. Buying stuff in the shop supports the game, since the game price itself doesn't give enough revenue in comparison to the game development cost and ongoing development. This makes sense. But in its current incarnation, the shop looks dishonest. If I see a shop with items to buy, I assume the seller offers useful or nice stuff for a customer to buy. The seller put effort into his stuff and is eager to sell something of value to his customer. This is honest. But in the GW2 shop, there is stuff that took a minimum amount of work with a price half of the whole game itself. This is no effort for too much money. This is dishonest.

>

> Let me tell you this: If there were a button in the game labeled "click to consume 1000 gems to support the game" that consumes 1000 gems without giving anything back, I would probably click it, once in a while, because I definitely want to support the game. Click it, destroy 1000 gems I previously bought for this and get nothing in return. I would click it to support the game.

>

> On the other hand, I would never buy a skin for 1000 gems in the shop, because buying a nothing (compared to the whole game) for 12,50 Euro is a thing I simply couldn't do.

>

> I hope, this makes sense.

 

This is a morally subjective argument, just saying. Not indicating it's a bad thing, just stating the point.

 

Why I say that is, everything you just said doesn't matter because it may not reflect reality. Good intentions do not pay bills and if Anet opened up a Patreon to get free money, not only would it likely come with its own set of backlash from this game's community, but likely the entire industry as a whole. No one wants a company that is already on the market to expect to have the option of just asking its customers for free money. I guarantee you.

[Asum.4960]

The strength of actual microtransactions (between 50 cents and 2€) is the fact of continuous impulse purchases.

If you weren't selling semi overpriced skins in gambling boxes alongside grossly overpriced buy what you want skins, you could have a majority of the player base constantly impulse buying weapon and mount skins in a range of 50 cents (weapon skins) to 5-6€ (gliders, outfits, mount skins).

People wouldn't mind continuously buying skins for the same slots (aka Gliders, Outfits, Mounts) because, _"hey, it's just a few cents/euros and I really like that skin!"_.

 

The Problem with the route you are taking, is that eventually even a lot of few people who are willing to drop 25€ on a single skin now, will have enough, they will be covered (outside of the occasional _"Oh wow, alright, THAT skin I'll have to get"_ moment), or just leave the game over time.

While even with a lot of new people coming in, they won't be so invested into the game to just drop a whole other game purchase worth of money on a single skin.

 

The current approach of gambling boxes and whale baits **will** make you a huge amount of money short term, there is no question about that.

But be aware, this **will** come at the expense of long term profitability and customer satisfaction (which you might not be interested in any more with an aging product, who knows).

 

I personally would prefer a large, stable and happy community, of which most of all can contribute to the future success of the game while getting the shiny's they want, over a risky small group of big spenders behind a disgruntled community who eventually can't afford a majority of the cosmetics in the game.

 

This new attitude of **milking** instead of **future proofing**, to someone who likes this game and wants to support it and see it grow and exist far into the future, is worrying.

 

Single weapon skins for 5-8€, single mount skins for 25€ and gambling boxes for 5€, to me, is obscene and I personally will choose not support you in this way.

For the game and Anet's sake, I'll hope that the people who do have that kind of money to buy these skins at those prices, will do so continuously over years to come, but I doubt it.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @Asum.4960 said:

> The strength of actual microtransactions (between 50 cents and 2€) is the fact of continuous impulse purchases.

> If you weren't selling semi overpriced skins in gambling boxes alongside grossly overpriced buy what you want skins, you could have a majority of the player base constantly impulse buying weapon and mount skins in a range of 50 cents (weapon skins) to 5-6€ (gliders, outfits, mount skins).

> People wouldn't mind continuously buying skins for the same slots (aka Gliders, Outfits, Mounts) because, _"hey, it's just a few cents/euros and I really like that skin!"_.

>

> The Problem with the route you are taking, is that eventually even a lot of few people who are willing to drop 25€ on a single skin now, will have enough, they will be covered (outside of the occasional _"Oh wow, alright, THAT skin I'll have to get"_ moment), or just leave the game over time.

> While even with a lot of new people coming in, they won't be so invested into the game to just drop a whole other game purchase worth of money on a single skin.

>

> The current approach of gambling boxes and whale baits **will** make you a huge amount of money short term, there is no question about that.

> But be aware, this **will** come at the expense of long term profitability and customer satisfaction (which you might not be interested in any more with an aging product, who knows).

>

> I personally would prefer a large, stable and happy community, of which most of all can contribute to the future success of the game while getting the shiny's they want, over a risky small group of big spenders behind a disgruntled community who eventually can't afford a majority of the cosmetics in the game.

>

> This new attitude of **milking** instead of **future proofing**, to someone who likes this game and wants to support it and see it grow and exist far into the future, is worrying.

>

> Single weapon skins for 5-8€, single mount skins for 25€ and gambling boxes for 5€, to me, is obscene and I personally will choose not support you in this way.

> For the game and Anet's sake, I'll hope that the people who do have that kind of money to buy these skins at those prices, will do so continuously over years to come, but I doubt it.

 

This!

[Leo G.4501]

> @ReaverKane.7598 said:

> So many words, and no answers.

> Like before its MO saying we don't care, give us money.

> While i doubt he's even making any money. Being greedy doesn't bring profit, being smart does. And i hope that he can keep financing the game on the backs of 1% of the games population.

>

> I know forum polls are hardly representative, but that's the only metrics that really exist. So according to https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/18304/how-much-would-you-be-willing-to-pay-for-a-mount-skin

>

> 15% of the voters say they'd pay 2000 gems (if you pay 2000+ you'd pay only 2000)

> 23% of the voters would pay 1500 gems (again those willing to pay 2000 wouldn't start crying that it's only 1500)

> 51% would pay 1000 gems

> 100% of the voters would pay 800 gems (that doesn't mean that 100% of the population would pay 800 gems, and the poll has no lower options)

>

> Extrapolating those votes you can see that if the price was 1000 gems they'd probably sell three times more mounts than for 2000 gems. And you know what isn't 3x 1000? 2000.

> At 800 gems would be around 4-5 times the volume of sales compared to 2000, and you know what's 4x 800? Correct NOT 2000, even if it was only 3x the sales at 2000, it would make up for the difference.

>

> So by being greedy they are effectively losing money, because they have a lower volume of sales.

>

> What this answer shows is that what they want is the same as EA is doing in BF2. Wait for it to blow out and for 2000 gem costs to become "normal" and people start buying. It's up to the community to show resilience to these tactics and not be lulled into accepting this stuff as the "new normal".

 

1. Online polls are useless.

2. You're assuming all those voters would actually buy the mount simply because its cheap. Even if they did, it would likely be through the gold exchange, i.e. you won't see increases in income from the introduction of the item, just a shift in the value of gems.

3. I'd trust actual figures over polls, which we need to wait for to get usable data. Be patient.

[Trinnitty.8256]

Maybe they priced them high so when there is a sale for like 50% off people will flip out (buy them) about savings of half off retail. Woohoo

[Leo G.4501]

> @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.

>

 

Can't necessarily put this statement in past tense yet. The expansion hasn't been out that long and the buyable mount skins have been out even less.

[Vayne.8563]

> @ReaverKane.7598 said:

> > @Rococo.8347 said:

> > I just think that they have had options in the way they fund this game in the past and ways now that arnt being considered.

> >

> > Personally I wouldn't have made vanilla GW2 free, I would have just given a generous trial, couldn't some of the drop off in sales a few months after Hot have been alleviated if they were still selling the original game in a bundle? They also could have charged more for PoF, I would have paid it if had been as content dense as I found HoT and replayable.

> >

> > They could put a couple of skins in the game itself, or even just 4 channels as part of some treasure hunt meta, at this point although I am not keen I wouldnt be adverse to a sub if it meant expansions stopped being stunted and more end game pretties.

> >

> > Look at the new raid exclusive legendary trinket, a game mode that Anet wants to keep exclusive and yet gates items like this to encourage people to play - a story mode and/or lower level version, that's what would encourage me to play, all of these decisions just don't feel like the best ones that could be made.

>

> Yeah, if you think about it (and i have, especially of late) when give 2 choices Arena Net, mostly since HoT, usually takes the easy and lazy one out. Also the one that inflates the economy the most as well. They worry so much on the game economy, and their bottom line that they compromise the enjoyment of the game for it.

> Like you said, PoF lacks a ton of content. People aren't demanding refunds because they know LS4 is there to pick up the slack (LS3 was the only thing that saved HoT from flopping Arena Net to the realm of Wildstar), but now they're asking for money to finance LS4 like PoF was a huge expansion full of content.

> Don't get me wrong i liked it, liked the story, but because of the way Arena Net handles end-game, the expansion is short-lived.

> There's basically nothing to do, which would be different, hadn't they dismissed dungeons in favor of fractals (the lazy solution). Fractals are convenient, don't need an interface on the map, it's all in a Hub, and they don't need to be big, and have ramifications like normal dungeons with the explorable paths, because where a dungeon would have to be standalone, a fractal is part of a whole, which requires less work. But also diminishes the game. Most end-game content is now disconnected from the game world. Although raids have physical entrances, i'm willing to bet that a lot of people have done the raid and don't know where the entrance is because there's a HUB.

> And because Arena Net can't do balance, even in what content they release, they went from a freaking sprawling meta in ALL maps to barely any meta content. And in terms of rewards... Well... Nada.

>

> I'm still holding judgement on the new Gift of Desert Mastery, but even it seems to rely on HoT meta rewards (which kinda defeats the purpose of having it in the game at all).

>

 

I have thought about it. I've thought about it for a long long time and I disagree with pretty much everything you'd said here. HoT didn't flop, even without the LIving Story. It didn't break any records for sure, but it also was no where near the levels Wildstar was, and trying to compare the two is completely disingenuous.

 

IF you're an "end game" player that is looking for difficuilt content, PoF has very little content. If you're an explorer who'd into achievements and collecting stuff, PoF has a ton of content. Depends on what you consider content.

 

The can add 100 raids to this game, and it wouldn't up the content I play even a little. They can add challenge motes to every fractal and I couldn't care less. But races and scavenger hunts and jumping puzzles,. I'll do those all day. Not everyone's content is equal.

 

There are plenty of people still running around the HoT zones all the time and have been since the day HoT launched. HOT wasn't a runaway success, nor was it a failure. And PoF, which got better reviews, is still being played by people every day. But different people than the people who enjoy HoT.

 

As for funding the game, I'm not convinced supporting the high end difficult crowd over the casual take your time crowd is even worth it, but apparently Anet thinks it is.

[Leo G.4501]

> @Asum.4960 said:

> I personally would prefer a large, stable and happy community, of which most of all can contribute to the future success of the game while getting the shiny's they want, over a risky small group of big spenders behind a disgruntled community who eventually can't afford a majority of the cosmetics in the game.

 

I pretty much agree with your whole post but just wanted to comment on this. City of Heroes had that but it's still dead. I believe Anet does still own full rights to their game so if NCSoft decides to axe the game, they aren't up against a wall trying to keep GW/GW2 going.

 

 

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @ReaverKane.7598 said:

> > So many words, and no answers.

> > Like before its MO saying we don't care, give us money.

> > While i doubt he's even making any money. Being greedy doesn't bring profit, being smart does. And i hope that he can keep financing the game on the backs of 1% of the games population.

> >

> > I know forum polls are hardly representative, but that's the only metrics that really exist. So according to https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/18304/how-much-would-you-be-willing-to-pay-for-a-mount-skin

> >

> > 15% of the voters say they'd pay 2000 gems (if you pay 2000+ you'd pay only 2000)

> > 23% of the voters would pay 1500 gems (again those willing to pay 2000 wouldn't start crying that it's only 1500)

> > 51% would pay 1000 gems

> > 100% of the voters would pay 800 gems (that doesn't mean that 100% of the population would pay 800 gems, and the poll has no lower options)

> >

> > Extrapolating those votes you can see that if the price was 1000 gems they'd probably sell three times more mounts than for 2000 gems. And you know what isn't 3x 1000? 2000.

> > At 800 gems would be around 4-5 times the volume of sales compared to 2000, and you know what's 4x 800? Correct NOT 2000, even if it was only 3x the sales at 2000, it would make up for the difference.

> >

> > So by being greedy they are effectively losing money, because they have a lower volume of sales.

> >

> > What this answer shows is that what they want is the same as EA is doing in BF2. Wait for it to blow out and for 2000 gem costs to become "normal" and people start buying. It's up to the community to show resilience to these tactics and not be lulled into accepting this stuff as the "new normal".

>

> 1. Online polls are useless.

> 2. You're assuming all those voters would actually buy the mount simply because its cheap. Even if they did, it would likely be through the gold exchange, i.e. you won't see increases in income from the introduction of the item, just a shift in the value of gems.

> 3. I'd trust actual figures over polls, which we need to wait for to get usable data. Be patient.

 

1. True, but don't have any other figures, and i did point that out.

2. I'm assuming that the proportion of players that vote for either options and buy within those parameters are more or less equal. Sure it might not correlate, but shouldn't be too far off. Gems bought with gold have the same intrinsic value in terms of revenue for arena net:

 

Player A buys 800 Gems for 10€, then buys a mount = Arena Net gains 10€

Player C buys 800 Gems for 10€, sells them for the equivalent ammount of gold; Player B buys 800 Gems from the Gemstore = Arena Net gains 10€

 

3. They don't supply usable data. But here's the facts:

* You barely see any of the 2000 Gems mounts ingame. It's anecdotal evidence, but it's an indicator.

* Even with all the controversy, you clearly see a LOT of the Mount Adoption license Mounts.

* The controversy and backlash was sufficient that MO felt he had to make a statement about it.

* The real world demonstrates that scale economy (selling a lot of cheap items, as opposed to selling a few expensive ones) generally works.

 

So yeah, i question the validity of their options, and how they translate to actual measured choices, or simply following the pervasive trend in the media nowadays.

 

 

[Sylvyn.4750]

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.

[Leo G.4501]

> @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" ).