Ugh... overpriced skins

[OneYenShort.3189]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> Given that Mike O'Brien claims they need to price Mountfits at 2000 gems, then how else would you have wanted them to roll out their system? The way they did? Or in a way that made it seem like they had a plan?

 

I missed where he stated that they needed to roll them out at that price, but if so, that is very telling about ANET. When you consider outfits require more work to fit the various races, and sometime more work is done to create say different pants based on race, let alone the differences of gender, and outfits go for 700 gems. And yet for mounts, it is one size (scaling) for all, with some slight changes in character/race positioning on the mounts, no gender differences....

 

Did they screw up with the pricing of outfits, or are they lying about the price needed for the mount skins? Only anet has the answer for this.

 

[STIHL.2489]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> ...You can always trade your FREE game gold for FREE gems, and get whatever you want from the gem store for FREE! Awesome right? I seem to think so!!! It's really amazing, and generous, of Anet to give players an option to get all this cool stuff for FREE, while also giving FREE monthly access to the game!!! Anet da best!!!

 

Apparently.. FREE is not enough, they want it cheap too. LOL

 

[Blue Hare.8612]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Blue Hare.8612" said:

> > Griffon mount is 250 gold and translates to about 1000 gems and that is around 12$. So I would have to pay 12$ for something that I should already have access to when I bought the expansion. Outrageous.

>

> No, there is no logical reason you should have access to skins just because you bought the expansion. That makes no sense at all. But I'm glad you posted that because it shows an important point ... the price of the skins doesn't actually matter. There are ALWAYS going to be unhappy, no matter what the price is. This guy is a prime example; he doesn't think they should cost anything! There is no price that anyone can think of that will make every player satisfied and allow Anet to make money; there IS no 'right' price that will prevent some fraction of players being unhappy. Therefore, it's silly to imagine Anet should 'work harder' to have 'better prices' on their GS offerings. Anyone that thinks this way doesn't understand the business, at all.

>

> What we should all be hoping is that there IS a price Anet can make a profit with, or at least recoup the cost to develop because if their isn't, you won't get access to ANY new skins.

>

>

 

That quote is not the whole comment I made.

 

The point was that ppl were complaining that skins are expensive and stuff and acting like they are entitled to them. So to put it in perspective I compared it to griffon MOUNT (not a skin) that also is fairly "expensive" when you convert the gold to gems and real money (12$). And the actual mount (be bonus mount or not) is something you could argue to be entitled to when you buy the expansion.

 

Personally I have no problems with the price of skins or the actual mount.

 

So yeah, hope that clears stuff up then...

 

Edit: And if my original comment was hard to understand, here one more time: The collection to unlock Griffon MOUNT does cost 250g

You can refer to Wiki if you want more info on griffon MOUNT: [https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Griffon_(mount)](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Griffon_(mount) "https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Griffon_(mount)")

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

At least you can still convert gold to gems I guess...plus isn't this going to be merged with the mounts feedback thread things? No? Idk. Inb4 it does anyway.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"OneYenShort.3189" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > Given that Mike O'Brien claims they need to price Mountfits at 2000 gems, then how else would you have wanted them to roll out their system? The way they did? Or in a way that made it seem like they had a plan?

>

> I missed where he stated that they needed to roll them out at that price, but if so, that is very telling about ANET. When you consider outfits require more work to fit the various races, and sometime more work is done to create say different pants based on race, let alone the differences of gender, and outfits go for 700 gems. And yet for mounts, it is one size (scaling) for all, with some slight changes in character/race positioning on the mounts, no gender differences....

>

> Did they screw up with the pricing of outfits,

>

 

I think you misunderstood what I wrote (and more importantly, what Mike O'Brien wrote). Cost wasn't a factor in deciding to price the fancier Mountfits at 2k; income was. They can increase the cash flow by selling fewer units at higher prices than they can with the historical pattern of trying to sell lots of units at lower prices. They aren't trying to appeal to folks like me who rarely find something that requires spending US$25 on; they are trying to find stuff to appeal to those who want to drop lots of money on the game by giving them things that are interesting to them.

 

Sure, I expected Mountfits to be cheaper because Outfits have been historically priced less **and** because ANet didn't take the time to reset our expectations about prices (worse, they did things that encouraged us to believe that modest Outfit prices were the right benchmark). There was a post in which someone used the phrase, "maybe you're overthinking things" and I think the problem is that ANet underthought things. Worse, this isn't the first time they bungled a gem shop pricing situation, allowing people to go ballistic in a completely predictable and preventable way.

 

To rephrase in simplest terms:

* ANet claims that their best pricing strategy for the long-term health of the game is higher-priced items designed to appeal to the subset of players who want to spend more.

* Given that's the case, I wish they had though through how to roll that out so we realized there was a change in plans.

[Noa.7490]

I always believed that's it is better to have ten customers who pay $1 than one customer who pays $10.

[Svarty.8019]

> @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> The problem with charging $25 for a mount skin is:

 

As[ Deraboam](

" Deraboam") says, "To overprice an item, the item must have a known value already it is then priced over what it is worth. it is not OVERpriced. It is priced."

 

"You may gaze upon it and dream of the wealth required to possess it."

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Noa.7490" said:

> I always believed that's it is better to have ten customers who pay $1 than one customer who pays $10.

 

I think ANet is saying they can have 10 customers who pay $10 or 20 who pay $1. (I mean, obviously I made up those numbers. The point is the total income is more in the higher-priced item scenario). The data seems to support the theory that those who are wiling to spend $25 will do so often, if there are $25 items, while those who won't pay more than $10 buy much, much less often individually.

 

It's not that unusual in some industries.

[STIHL.2489]

> @"Noa.7490" said:

> I always believed that's it is better to have ten customers who pay $1 than one customer who pays $10.

 

This might work for some products, but it does not work for F2P Item mall games.

 

Imagine if you will, that they need everyone to spend 1 dollar a month to keep the game going.

 

Now.. nowhere near everyone spends that 1 dollar, and thus all the people that spend less are carried by those that spend more.

 

In the MMO world, the person paying 10 dollars, is paying for 9 other people to keep playing the game, Everyone that spends a dollar, only pays for themselves. As such the people play 10 dollars are far more valuable to the longevity and development of game then those that pay 1 or less.

 

Now even with that, the people that spend 10, in reality, they just keep the game afloat and allow all the people that think they should not need to spend money to keep playing the game. They function more as a counter balance to those that don't fiscally invest enough as opposed to a profitable economy, because, sadly, they make up less then 10%

 

Now, The people who spend 20, 30, 50.. are what really keeps the game growing., often they are called "Whales", and they make up far less then the people who pay 10 dollars, but they are the life blood of a game, they are what keep a game growing and what keeps updates happening. Losing them, is like cutting a main artery, because, sadly, all the people were not spending enough to start with, won't ever suddenly pick up the tab if the whales leave.

 

That is why raw population numbers has no effect on financials earnings for F2P games.

 

It's unfortunate that nowhere near 10 out of 10 players spend 1 dollar to make the needed 10 dollars to pay the bills, but it is what it is, and that is why they need the people that spend more, and need to give them something to spend that more on.

[Ashen.2907]

> @"Noa.7490" said:

> I always believed that's it is better to have ten customers who pay $1 than one customer who pays $10.

 

Perhaps under some circumstances. What happens when your (speaking hypothetically here) product costs $.99 to produce?

[Cobrakon.3108]

Cosmetics help support a game that's B2P with no monthly subscription. Id say do whatever u have to do to keep the game going just don't make anything that's Pay to Win in the gem store.

 

They must be watching the metrics and could adjust accordingly to maximize profits, but perhaps its at the right price now, or perhaps they will lower it to help the game succeed in some shape or form.

 

I may disagree with the prices, but I don't have all the data.

 

My speculation about greediness would just be theories without backup. Perhaps its to milk the game until its completely dry. Perhaps the price insures a long life span and decent profit for the game. Perhaps the price ensures anet employees have a job instead of cutting jobs. I can't really know, but I wish I knew a little more about what goes on behind the scenes. Its all speculation really.

[Zedek.8932]

> @"Noa.7490" said:

> I always believed that's it is better to have ten customers who pay $1 than one customer who pays $10.

 

The problem here is: Who is able to buy virtual goods in the first place?

When I played my first online game, I was 16 years. No PayPal, barely any pocket money and as student, I was simply not ready to get a job yet for some extra income.

My parents would never allow me to spend my 25€/month on anything digital.

 

If aNet sees the numbers and probably how many are buying the base game, or how many bought gems, or even how many are on a freebie here, they might realize to rather "milk" the guys that can pay at all/can pay more (because they are having a job) than trying to cater to people that might never spend something for the reasons above. Offering cheaper items for a target audience that might not be able to purchase at all just makes it cheaper for those who could pay more, so you can't "milk" customers as fast. I use the word "milking" here because that's whats happening, not in a bad way though, even though it sounds like that.

 

Example: Mount skin price 0€

 

Target Audience:

Students, Kids, People not ready to spend anything, People on a freebie = Would get mountskins but would never spend a dime otherwise.

People with income or parents that pay virtual goodies for them = Obtain them for 0€ as well even they could spend (more) money

ArenaNet makes no money.

 

Mount skin price being 25€

Students, Kids, People not ready to spend anything, People on a freebie = They won't still buy anything, because they can not or **don't want to.**

People with income or parents that pay virtual goodies for them = Buy them for 25€

ArenaNet starts to make money.

 

If you cater anything in-between, you just lose money, because the people who can not buy (parents not allowing, no payment method available, bad exchange rate,...)will still not buy, no matter if 15€, 8€ or 1€.

People that can spend money on the game will pay 10€, 15€ or 25€ and more because they can.

 

So it makes more sense to actually skip all the socialism stuff (of "we are all equal no matter if we pay for it or not") and get to the real price to generate desire and a feel of premium. And that's totally okay!

 

Excelsior.

 

 

[Cragga the Eighty Third.60]

Think of it like an art gallery.

 

You go in, and there are pictures for sale for $10 or $20 or $30. And then there is a picture for $10,000. Is it a better picture? Is it better art? Is it by an artist who is 1000 times better than the one asking for $10? Maybe you don't think so. (I usually don't.) It's priced at that level because there are some people who will fork out that much for it, not because it necessarily has that actual value. If it sells for that much, it keeps the artist and the studio in the black for that much longer, and turns out to be worth waiting for someone with deep pockets.

 

You can always stomp around the front desk screaming that you want the $10,000 painting but that the pricing is ridiculous and exploitative and greedy. Point out that the paint and canvas probably cost less than $25 and offer $50 for it. Stand out front with a protest sign reading "Unfair pricing!" And all of it would probably drive the price up, if anything, because there is so much public interest in the painting.

 

The fact that so many people are ranting about the price just proves how MUCH and how MANY people want the item. If anything, this thread is providing JUSTIFICATION of the high price. Every angry post, under the surface, is yelling "I WANT THAT SOOO MUCH!" and driving the perceived value of the item up.

 

Now, if people just didn't buy, because they thought it wasn't worth it, and they didn't care enough to rant, the prices would probably drop like a Zephyrite airship. If nobody looks at the $10,000 painting and it sticks there on the wall collecting dust, the art gallery slashes the price. Or removes it from sale.

[Sojourner.4621]

> @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

> > @"Haleydawn.3764" said:

> > > @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

> >

> > > The issue is that it takes about a year (for me at least) to get 500 gold is what I'm getting at.

> >

> > 500g= 250 days of just doing your daily. Unless you only log in for those 5mins/day to do your daily on semi-regular basis, then I’d believe you when you said it takes a year for you to make 500g.

>

> Which is most of my game income actually. The daily is where I get most of my money outside the few times I do/can do Fractals.

> A lot of that money then goes into trying to make materials I need to craft ascended (which I still don't have a single ascended armour yet).

>

> I have 0 clue how to make gold in this game outside of the 2 from the daily and then the certain times when I remember to do Tequila, which I just remembered I didn't get to do today.

 

The biggest source of gold for most people is playing the game. Seriously... that's it. Go in to your material storage once in a while and empty it of everything you're not using regularly, then sell that on the trade post. That ALONE can net you amounts of gold that you never knew that you had. I make about 100g a week just selling the materials that build up in my storage from salvaging and from gathering nodes that I run near rather than running past and ignoring them. I make another 100g in a week if I buckle down and do some meta event chains or world boss chains or an hour in silverwastes a couple of my days of the week, etc. etc. Most of these activities are just generally part of the game, easy and straightforward activities, and tend to have higher reward yields than you think about until you really start selling (on the TP. Make sure you sell on the Trade Post! It still amazes me how often I find people complaining about lack of gold from selling, only to discover they only sell to NPC vendors.)

 

Most importantly.... As with most things, the same as real life, you will also find you have a lot more gold saved if you just. stop. spending. If you have a goal, just ask yourself if you really need that weapon skin right now or if it can wait. Personally I have "crafted" a number of ascended items mostly by just... selling the mats now, buying the ascended ones later. Sure, that is technically the more expensive way to do it, but since I hate crafting and would rather do it in as few steps as possible it works out well for me... and it feels better to have a wallet full of gold to me than to have a storage full of mats that I can't see the intrinsic value of at a glance. Also, incidentally, it can help to get your API key and set up an account at gw2efficiency so you can see at a glance what the materials in your storage are worth. If you're not crafting legendaries, stop hoarding the mystic coins and sell those... they are a HUGE source of gold if you bother to TP them.

[Sojourner.4621]

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

 

Single gem store exclusive skins that now cost more than 2000 gems, effectively: Phoenix warhorn skin, 850g. Chaos Scepter Skin, 838g.... I can go on, there are dozens.

 

> Except, no... It took a bit over 2 months for the Ascension to be added to the game.

> And Glider skins at most cost 800 Gems, not 2000. There's no RNG glider box. Also there's bundles with gliders and back items, there's bundles with outfits and gliders and other stuff, all of that at equal or less than a single mount skin.

 

Wrong. The Ascension glider skin was not available until the LEGENDARY tier of the back item was released, in March of 2016, where HoT released in OCTOBER of 2015 (exactly six months, like I stated.) I know it can be confusing because the legendary JOURNEY for the back item started with the pvp season directly after HoT release, but it took them months for them to make the final tier of the backpack attainable, and thus months for the glider to be attainable.

 

> Wouldn't say that ESO is the industry standard, BUT ok, lets begin:

> 1) They have SEVERAL mounts purchasable ingame. (http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Mount_(Online))

> 2) The cheapest gemstore non RNG mount costs ~10€ (so ~800 gems) the most expensive is actually cheaper than here, because in there the more "crowns" you buy the cheaper the get, but even so if one would be dumb and buy in increments of the lowest bundle it would cost ~27€, so pretty much the same as here.

> (http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Crowns)

> 3) They're all account bound. (

)

 

1) There are several mounts acquirable in game for trade contracts and gold cost, and they actually have unique functions as opposed to "Run faster".

2) There are several gemstore mounts that cost less than the 2000 gem exclusives, they just happen to be bundled together for around 400 gems a piece, or sometimes at a pricing discount. You're correct that you get crown bundles at a discount, but that doesn't excuse the single mount skins that cost 4500 crowns like the Great Elk, or other seasonal exclusives, which is at BEST $30

3) yes, they are all account bound. Fancy that... and there are some locked 100% behind loot crates. And they can cost an arm and a leg for the "nice" ones.

 

> Now lets look at what could be considered the industry standard, since it's definetly the most popular MMORPG, WoW:

> 1) Has a ton of mounts available in game through simple purchases, drops, crafting, achievements, etc. These are in general Bound on Pickup. (http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Mount)

> 2) Has a fraction of the number of ingame mounts available for 25€ (ACCOUNT WIDE) (https://eu.shop.battle.net/en-gb/product/world-of-warcraft-mount-armored-bloodwing)

 

Yup, the accound wide mounts are super expensive, around $25... why are you proving my point as a disproof again?

 

> FFXIV:

> 1) Same as WoW, a ton of in-game mounts, a fraction are store bought.

> 2) Prices vary from 12 to 30$

> 3) Aren't account bound because the game is made so that you can have all classes on a single character, and so it's not considered necessary to have more than one character.

So, the mounts are both expensive AND character bound? How is this an argument against again? Because the game actively discourages multi-toon? Not an excuse because some people will have multiple characters regardless.

 

Black Desert Online also has similarly priced mounts, character bound only, and DOESN'T otherwise actively discourage multiple characters. Don't even get me started on some of the ToR prices.... though to be fair almost every skin on ToR is at least account wide.

 

> If GW2 would follow the same practices as those other games, you'd have a ton of in-game choices to pick before you had to resort to gemstore. As it stands even the dye channels on ingame mounts are restricted to the bare minimum possible.

 

Also, it is notable that MOST of those games have a subscription fee either MANDATORY or as an option, so they are guaranteed to make a certain set amount of income every month without their sales. If GW2 followed the same practices as those other games, you'd be paying more every month than you are now, but you wouldn't even actually have the choice to do otherwise, or you would have the illusion of choice.

 

> Well, Arena Net pushed it A LOT with mounts. They blow away their PREVIOUSLY DEMONSTRATED STANDARDS. And yes, some statements from MO are a bit disingenuous.

> I would actually counter that they have demonstrated in the past that they do, frequently, add skins attainable ingame.

> Discounting armor and weapons there's several outfits that are/were available ingame. The Hexed Outfit is regularly obtainable during Halloween ingame. The Royal Guard Outfit was given away to players. The old town clothes are now outfits, all of them were and still are (to a point) obtainable ingame.

> There's 3 Gliders obtainable ingame.

> A ton of minis are obtainable ingame.

> There's special gathering tools (not infinite tough) obtainable ingame.

> Boosts, Styling kits, bank access, etc are also all available through in-game rewards.

> Only exception is mounts. And since i don't see them adding a legendary... Mount? I doubt you'll ever get ingame mounts the same way we got gliders. Which just makes the poorly managed gemstore mounts all the worse.

> Because if there were in-game alternatives, that would make it different. They could say: "sure this one costs 30€, BUT you can get all those other ones in-game." Now they're saying: "whoo EA did it, we can do it too!!"

 

Again, they may still add in game attainable mount skins. Since you were 100% completely wrong with the glider skins... it was in fact six months and you are totally false, we have no proof they won't add some "legendary" skins as attainable in game at some point. Minis are barely comparable to mount skins at all, but even beyond that the points still stand that the legendary back items serve a separate and unique purpose aside from JUST being a skin, and the skin was clearly tacked on as an extra at the end of the whole process... sort of a "Oh hey this looks like wings so why not make it a glider too". Also costs WAY more than 500g.

[zealex.9410]

Vote with your wallets

[Magnus Godrik.5841]

The problem is that people look at it as $25 dollars. When that is not the case. I look at it as a grind to convert my gold into gems. So it's basically free for those who want to grind. And for those who don't you have the option to buy it. What is fair is truely in the eyes of the beholder. Remember you have an option to buy with in game gold or cash. Do not get mad at anet because you don't want to grind. And for 25 dollars you don't have to and get instant gratification.

[STIHL.2489]

I used to spend near that much as well Ashen.2907 , and I agree, I was nowhere near a whale. But I enjoy the game enough to spend it happy.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > @"Oglaf.1074" said:

> > Whales keep on buyin', Anet keep on overpricin'.

> >

> > Simple as that.

> >

> > You and me were never the target demographic for these mount skins.

>

> That's the gist of it, although I'm not actually convinced they wouldn't make more money if they charged a more reasonable price for them. I'm also very convinced that, even if some people buy it, setting an artificially high price point for something is terrible for your business in the long run.

 

It will seem that way to the poor or the frugal. The thing is, the poor will cry about the price being too high while the frugal understand what the item is actually worth...and every skin is not actually worth anything...

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> I don't know.... Do these other games that charge $10 for Mount skins also charge a monthly subscription? Are the $10 Mount skins usable by every character ever created, past, present and future on the account? I would imagine these kinds of things influence the determination of 'industry standards'. /shrug

 

Also, are they also dyeable? I bet, some of those $10 mounts in other games have some recolors of the same mount.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> If it was their lifeline they'd do the math and realize that selling 1000 skins for 1000 gems is better than 100 skins for 2000.

 

I'm still unsure about that. Those 1000 skins for 1000 gems...how many of those are going to be purchased with straight cash? I understand that someone has to purchase the gems in the 1st place, but it's not an equivalent 1-to-1 trade, it's a currency exchange and you could be swapping for gems that were purchased weeks or months ago (example for visualization purposes).

 

I think the reason they decided to put higher priced items up is because they don't need slight upward trends in revenue, they need spikes. Not only is there no guarantee that that many people will purchase the 1000 gem mount skin, but there's also no guarantee they will drop cash for it or exchange it for gold. Every purchase made with gold exchanged doesn't actually change how much revenue they make that month and when you're in aggressive markets like gaming where you'll feel those corporate vice grips tightening on your balls every time you don't make that quarter's goal, you need some options.

 

[Sarie.1630]

> @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> O'Brien defended this as industry standard, but even if this was a good argument (it isn't), it actually isn't really true. In other games, $25 skins are only released occasionally as premium skins to supplement what can be found in the game, and they are usually entirely new creatures with special effects that can be used exclusively if desired by the player.

>

> I can't help but think things like this drive players away in the long run even if some people are paying for it now. Getting ahead of "it's optional, and they have to make money from somewhere" arguments, yes, and I'm happy to support them by buying things through the gem store (mostly gold and reasonably priced skins), but I think there's a strong argument to be made that they're trying to monetize too many things in too many ways simultaneously, which starts to make the whole game reek of desperate cash grab schemes. IMO, that's _not_ the right way to do things.

I'm fine with them selling these more prestige skins for a lot of money for one reason: exclusivity. There is no achievement for unlocking them and that's the way it should stay so it really is purely cosmetic. I see so few of the expensive mount skins around that it makes me sit up when I do see one. I don't care if the people who buy them is just a credit card hero; it's an unusual noticeable skin and it makes me look - I enjoy that. I don't have any myself and I don't feel bad about that. I am sitting on my 2,000 gems waiting for them to make a mount skin that suits me perfectly.

 

I think, at the end of the day, you're not getting one from a random box, they are 100% cosmetic with no achievements or collections associated with them. I can understand why people might be butt-hurt that they can't afford them but I don't agree that they should be "made cheaper" so that more people can get access.

 

I might eventually end up with a full set but it's going to need to cater to my taste to make me pay out.

[Taltevus.3289]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > The problem with charging $25 for a mount skin is:

> >

> > a.) it's just a skin

> > b.) all the new skins so far are through the gem shop

> > c.) we have five types of mounts that often need to be swapped between.

> >

> > O'Brien defended this as industry standard, but it actually isn't - that was a disingenuous comment. In other games, $25 skins are only released occasionally as premium skins to supplement what can be found in the game, and they are usually entirely new creatures with special effects that can be used exclusively if desired by the player.

> >

> > Seriously, pull your head out. If you're going to have the audacity to do this, at least release make them entirely new creatures instead of just reskins, AND release a few that can be obtained in-game. This kind of behavior will just drive players away from the game. A skin should pretty much never be more than $10, and most players can see there's an attempt at exploitation by charging them $25 for a single skin for a single mount.

>

> There isn't a problem .. you don't need them.

>

> Besides, we already know Anet will adjust pricing if it doesn't work for them. Crying over the price of skins is just sour grapes.

 

Sugarpop that's why this is the way it is, your exact kind of reasoning.

The problem is players don't pay for an unpleasant user experience...they leave...and yeah come back but aren't forking over the dough.

This is a soft attempt at coercing money out of the playerbase...--er whatever hell is left of it via Fashion Wars 2: Pieces of Flair

The problem people don't get with skins is how much of a poor statement it really is.

It's been a problem since HoT.

Imagine if every Outfit had at least a PVE aspect to it like if it had a visual occurence in Tyria?

People don't realize that none of the stuff they buy from the gemstore is premium...at all. It's really bad.

It means that instead creating content that this item could appear in they just threw it in the store...doing the least amount of work and expecting the maximum return.

Point I want to make though is that many grew weary of this when...problems with HoT were being ignored but then every few weeks a new skin was coming out.

Players not happy in game, players don't buy in game. You could ignore this problem with player numbers were high but, now that they are low....hence you see this bold attempt from Anet. 1. The introduction of mounts and 2. The laughable prices only the most disillusioned are willing to pay.

I remember when there was a faint idea of putting weapons in BLC's I was Rolling. It's nice to see that hasn't really took off yet but, I wouldn't put it past them if that well gets too low.

 

[Zeivu.3615]

Don't like it? Don't buy it. Don't call any attention to it. All you are doing is bringing more publicity to it and increase the likelihood of people buying it to spite you. Dead horse is dead.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > If it was their lifeline they'd do the math and realize that selling 1000 skins for 1000 gems is better than 100 skins for 2000.

>

> I'm still unsure about that. Those 1000 skins for 1000 gems...how many of those are going to be purchased with straight cash? I understand that someone has to purchase the gems in the 1st place, but it's not an equivalent 1-to-1 trade, it's a currency exchange and you could be swapping for gems that were purchased weeks or months ago (example for visualization purposes).

>

> I think the reason they decided to put higher priced items up is because they don't need slight upward trends in revenue, they need spikes. Not only is there no guarantee that that many people will purchase the 1000 gem mount skin, but there's also no guarantee they will drop cash for it or exchange it for gold. Every purchase made with gold exchanged doesn't actually change how much revenue they make that month and when you're in aggressive markets like gaming where you'll feel those corporate vice grips tightening on your kitten every time you don't make that quarter's goal, you need some options.

>

 

Dude... ALL gems but the ones you get on the x5000 Achievement points are purchased with real cash.