Gem Store prices are unbalanced.

[Ardenwolfe.8590]

The bottom line is this: They're still making enough money from overall sales. And we know it because we're seeing players with all those gem store items. Expensive? Yes. But flawed?

 

What one person calls flawed, I call a success and the evidence is on my screen every night when I play.

 

And I don't argue with success.

 

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> > While I don't disagree, I'm curious: how do you expect ANet to make money so they may continue to give you free content?

>

> This is flawed reasoning. These are digital purchases, so Anet benefits more by releasing creative items at fair prices than they get by releasing different variations of the same thing and then trying to exploit player interest. See the recent controversy with mount skins, which are unarguably laughably overpriced to the point that it's very obvious to most player that it's an exploitative cash grab.

>

> Even if people indulge this in the short term, it is more likely to drive players away over time than it is to attract more revenue. It's a typical corporate problem of trying to maximize short term profit (usually for the benefit of shareholdres) at all costs.

>

> This is especially a problem with collectible items like gathering tools and skins. Overcharging for these while releasing them frequently will burn the absolute kitten out of players until they get pissed off and stop supporting the game. If you're going to overcharge, it makes way more sense to do it with finite items that don't receive constant expansion.

 

Players don’t play the game for the gem store.

 

These are also optional convenience items or skins which players are free to choose to purchase or not.

 

Prices are neither fair nor unfair as that type of qualifier does not apply. Either the item is worth the cost to the player or it is not.

[Einlanzer.1627]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> > > While I don't disagree, I'm curious: how do you expect ANet to make money so they may continue to give you free content?

> >

> > This is flawed reasoning. These are digital purchases, so Anet benefits more by releasing creative items at fair prices than they get by releasing different variations of the same thing and then trying to exploit player interest. See the recent controversy with mount skins, which are unarguably laughably overpriced to the point that it's very obvious to most player that it's an exploitative cash grab.

> >

> > Even if people indulge this in the short term, it is more likely to drive players away over time than it is to attract more revenue. It's a typical corporate problem of trying to maximize short term profit (usually for the benefit of shareholdres) at all costs.

> >

> > This is especially a problem with collectible items like gathering tools and skins. Overcharging for these while releasing them frequently will burn the absolute kitten out of players until they get pissed off and stop supporting the game. If you're going to overcharge, it makes way more sense to do it with finite items that don't receive constant expansion.

>

> It's hardly flawed. There is a cost to make those things they sell in the GS and Anet needs to sell a number of them just to cost the costs, not to mention fund other projects, overhead, etc ... . They are footing the bill to run the game on a server ... that is a cost they need to cover for US ... so unless you are proposing we go back to a server-cost covering model (i.e., monthly subs), then that point is very strong.

 

Duh. The problem is that by not pricing things fairly, they undermine their own support. Charging 2000 gems for a vanity collectible item that they release a new version of monthly or more is a poor strategy for maintaining long term support. Most players can see it's an attempt at price gouging, then choose not to buy it even when they want it and can afford it. Over a long period of time it's more likely to drive more revenue away than it brings in. Ditto for things like the gathering tools.

[Einlanzer.1627]

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> > > While I don't disagree, I'm curious: how do you expect ANet to make money so they may continue to give you free content?

> >

> > This is flawed reasoning. These are digital purchases, so Anet benefits more by releasing creative items at fair prices than they get by releasing different variations of the same thing and then trying to exploit player interest. See the recent controversy with mount skins, which are unarguably laughably overpriced to the point that it's very obvious to most player that it's an exploitative cash grab.

> >

> > Even if people indulge this in the short term, it is more likely to drive players away over time than it is to attract more revenue. It's a typical corporate problem of trying to maximize short term profit (usually for the benefit of shareholdres) at all costs.

> >

> > This is especially a problem with collectible items like gathering tools and skins. Overcharging for these while releasing them frequently will burn the absolute kitten out of players until they get pissed off and stop supporting the game. If you're going to overcharge, it makes way more sense to do it with finite items that don't receive constant expansion.

>

> Players don’t play the game for the gem store.

>

> These are also optional convenience items or skins which players are free to choose to purchase or not.

>

> Prices are neither fair nor unfair as that type of qualifier does not apply. Either the item is worth the cost to the player or it is not.

 

Are you implying that people don't apply judgment based on perception of fairness in pricing? Because, if so, that's completely wrong, and it also helps explain why companies sink all the time despite having a quality product.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

>

> > As a real life economist you'd also know that when there's so many people that complain about prices, there's bound to be some issues. In this case **marketing** issues, not economical ones.

>

> Except people complaining about prices is not indicative of issues, or even indicative of a problem; anyone that can't or doesn't want to pay the price for something is obviously going to have negative feelings about the cost; that doesn't mean there is a marketing or economic issue there.

>

> Did you know the price of any good is whatever the market will bare? That's basic economic stuff. If 'enough' people pay the price for the goods that Anet sets for them, then THAT IS the price. I don't know what enough is, but what I do know is that if enough isn't enough, Anet will do something about that because they have in the past.

>

> I can hardly think we have someone with a RL economics background complaining about the pricing AND claiming Anet has done the pricing 'wrong' without sales, revenue, cost and other financial data to make the conclusion. Considering that economics is just the science of exchange, that is just garbage science.

>

 

And obviously, the market isn't bearing that cost very well. Since even players that have the resources to buy them won't.

Again, this is a marketing issue, which may or may not result in a financial issue for Arena Net.

The price was set as if there's no context for similar items, but there is, and the price range for mount skins is aberrant when compared to other prices, and economists or not, players notice the inconsistency, and that's why there's controversy, and barely any visible purchases.

 

Now a different discussion is, is that intentional? Might be...

The market team might want to do one of two things with this, they might want to normalize higher prices for gem store items, so they can start introducing more and more expensive items.

Or they might be doing what i mentioned earlier, make the RNG boxes look more atractive by contrast and eventually earn more money from the RNG crates than they're losing for not lowering the "premium" mounts.

 

[Einlanzer.1627]

> @"PookieDaWombat.6209" said:

> > @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> > While I don't disagree, I'm curious: how do you expect ANet to make money so they may continue to give you free content?

>

> That's kind of like asking who do we think will make more money: a store that sells toothbrushes for 2 dollars or one that sells them for 20.

>

> That 20 dollar toothbrush better be able to reverse gum disease and enamel loss. If not, and if its basically the same as the other store's toothbrush, then there is a clear pricing issue.

>

> End of the day, more people will be willing to put more money down with realistic pricing, but Anet doesn't follow that business model. This is a sad cycle because what that means is new players with deep pockets rush to buy the inflated priced items, temporarily giving Anet a cash bump, but ultimately its not sustainable so they put more mediocre things in the store for higher prices to make up for any financial losses. Older players continue to be disenfranchised by these tactics, stop spending money or even playing and Anet prays for the next round of short term whales to fill the coffers.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.

[ReaverKane.7598]

Interestingly, we're also being told that those mounts are required to sustain the game, and then we get this gem:

http://massivelyop.com/2018/01/30/guild-wars-2-makes-superdatas-top-10-list-of-premium-pc-games-by-revenue-for-2017/

 

I guess it was the inflated Mount prices that did it, heh?

[MetalGirl.2370]

I can see why they decided to price things higher.

Because if the skin was 800-1000 gems for example, people would easily say "I'll just exchange my gold" and that way Anet earns no money, while when it's 2000gems for mount skin most people would decide not to spend 500-600g on it so they go for real money, which in return helps Anet keep the game up and running.

[Obtena.7952]

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> >

> > > As a real life economist you'd also know that when there's so many people that complain about prices, there's bound to be some issues. In this case **marketing** issues, not economical ones.

> >

> > Except people complaining about prices is not indicative of issues, or even indicative of a problem; anyone that can't or doesn't want to pay the price for something is obviously going to have negative feelings about the cost; that doesn't mean there is a marketing or economic issue there.

> >

> > Did you know the price of any good is whatever the market will bare? That's basic economic stuff. If 'enough' people pay the price for the goods that Anet sets for them, then THAT IS the price. I don't know what enough is, but what I do know is that if enough isn't enough, Anet will do something about that because they have in the past.

> >

> > I can hardly think we have someone with a RL economics background complaining about the pricing AND claiming Anet has done the pricing 'wrong' without sales, revenue, cost and other financial data to make the conclusion. Considering that economics is just the science of exchange, that is just garbage science.

> >

>

> And obviously, the market isn't bearing that cost very well. Since even players that have the resources to buy them won't.

 

Maybe you find it fun to make up facts, but you don't have a clue if this is true or not; you don't have the data or I'm assuming the ability to even analyze it to make this claim. Again, if the market will not bear the price, we know Anet will do something about that ... and so far, I don't see the cost of skins or mounts changing yet. So the evidence is actually weighing against what you think it true, not supporting it.

 

Besides, people don't buy stuff just because they have the means to buy them. That doesn't mean the market won't bear the cost ... it means those people are part of that market for that item. Basics ...

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"MetalGirl.2370" said:

> I can see why they decided to price things higher.

> Because if the skin was 800-1000 gems for example, people would easily say "I'll just exchange my gold" and that way Anet earns no money, while when it's 2000gems for mount skin most people would decide not to spend 500-600g on it so they go for real money, which in return helps Anet keep the game up and running.

 

The gems in the gold-for-gems exchange are put there by players looking to obtain gold without farming it. Those gems were paid for. So, ANet is getting revenue via the exchange. What we don't know is whether they are getting better/worse/the same revenue as they would get if the exchange did not exist.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"MetalGirl.2370" said:

> I can see why they decided to price things higher.

> Because if the skin was 800-1000 gems for example, people would easily say "I'll just exchange my gold" and that way Anet earns no money, while when it's 2000gems for mount skin most people would decide not to spend 500-600g on it so they go for real money, which in return helps Anet keep the game up and running.

 

Again, they do earn money from gems you buy with gold, those gems aren't just generated for your convenience, they have to be purchased by another person and then sold for gold so they are available for you. There's no loss for Arena net.

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > @"MetalGirl.2370" said:

> > I can see why they decided to price things higher.

> > Because if the skin was 800-1000 gems for example, people would easily say "I'll just exchange my gold" and that way Anet earns no money, while when it's 2000gems for mount skin most people would decide not to spend 500-600g on it so they go for real money, which in return helps Anet keep the game up and running.

>

> The gems in the gold-for-gems exchange are put there by players looking to obtain gold without farming it. Those gems were paid for. So, ANet is getting revenue via the exchange. What we don't know is whether they are getting better/worse/the same revenue as they would get if the exchange did not exist.

 

Definetly better... I mean even with that there's still a market for gold sellers. So there's a definite revenue stream there.> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > >

> > > > As a real life economist you'd also know that when there's so many people that complain about prices, there's bound to be some issues. In this case **marketing** issues, not economical ones.

> > >

> > > Except people complaining about prices is not indicative of issues, or even indicative of a problem; anyone that can't or doesn't want to pay the price for something is obviously going to have negative feelings about the cost; that doesn't mean there is a marketing or economic issue there.

> > >

> > > Did you know the price of any good is whatever the market will bare? That's basic economic stuff. If 'enough' people pay the price for the goods that Anet sets for them, then THAT IS the price. I don't know what enough is, but what I do know is that if enough isn't enough, Anet will do something about that because they have in the past.

> > >

> > > I can hardly think we have someone with a RL economics background complaining about the pricing AND claiming Anet has done the pricing 'wrong' without sales, revenue, cost and other financial data to make the conclusion. Considering that economics is just the science of exchange, that is just garbage science.

> > >

> >

> > And obviously, the market isn't bearing that cost very well. Since even players that have the resources to buy them won't.

>

> Maybe you find it fun to make up facts, but you don't have a clue if this is true or not; you don't have the data or I'm assuming the ability to even analyze it to make this claim. Again, if the market will not bear the price, we know Anet will do something about that ... and so far, I don't see the cost of skins or mounts changing yet. So the evidence is actually weighing against what you think it true, not supporting it.

>

> Besides, people don't buy stuff just because they have the means to buy them. That doesn't mean the market won't bear the cost ... it means those people are part of that market for that item. Basics ...

 

Well, i have eyes? Premium mounts are ridiculously rare. A lot of self-identified whales (supposed target market for these) have said those mounts are too expensive, far more than those that say they've bought one. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to infer that sales aren't that great.

 

Unless, they're attempting to have a "Premium Decoy" pricing strategy, using the 2000 gem premium mounts as an incentive for people to go for the RNG ones since they are apparently "cheaper", but due to their very own nature will end up costing more. It's an easy connection to make, due to MO's statements alluding to the only alternative to the RNG mounts being the 2000 gem ones, and that the first one (the jackal), was oddly coincidentally launched at the same time as the RNG mounts, which otherwise wouldn't make as much sense, since you'd not expect both mount types to be launched at the same time as not to rob protagonism from one by the other.

I'd expect that as a "real life" economist you'd be aware of such strategies.

[Brian.6435]

2000 gems for a mount skin is EFFING ridiculous. Anet is robbing people blind with that price. 2000 gems = 25 dollars. Path of fire standard edition is 30 bucks... HOW THE HELL DO YOU JUSTIFY ASKING 25 DOLLARS FOR A MOUNT SKIN, WHEN A FULL ON EXPANSION IS ONLY 5 DOLLARS MORE!??!

[Obtena.7952]

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

>

> Well, i have eyes? Premium mounts are ridiculously rare.

 

Again, that's not data or a measurement. Rarity is not a measure of what the market will bear as a price for mount skins. On the other hand, the persistent release of mount skins at the price listed ... IS. Maybe at some point, Anet stop releasing mount skins because the market changes ... like they did with armor sets. We aren't there yet.

 

What you think you see is completely irrelevant. I look at the horizon ... looks like the world is flat too, but it's not. The players you see without premium mounts is likely not a statistically valid sample. heck, you probably don't even know if you are seeing a premium mount; I can hardly believe you pay that much attention to begin with. Self-observation, especially with a bias, is a highly unreliable source of data.

 

 

[Einlanzer.1627]

I will tell you this - I like GW2, I have a fairly high disposable income, and I've liked all of the mount skins released.

 

Despite that, I have bought none of them, because it's very apparent to me that they are overpriced. I routinely buy things I don't feel are overpriced, such as glider skins and makeover kits.

 

If the mount skins were $10, I likely would have bought all of the ones they've released to date instead of none of them. I imagine I'm not anywhere near alone.

[MarshallLaw.9260]

> @"ZeftheWicked.3076" said:

 

>Not to mention the very high price in rl money for gems.

> As things are on more then one occasion i chose to grind for ingame gold and exchange it for gems, rather then throw a few $ at you, because of the high prices and low real money:gem ratio...

 

 

Although I'm sure your knowledge of economic strategies is superb and you are a master of pricing, marketing, purchasing and selling of all varieties of virtual items and commodities, I would still question if you are in any way correct.

ANet probably have a whole department who have analysed at which price, how many people will buy what product and set the level appropriately to maximize profit. Of course some people think the price is too high, they are not the target audience.

With all due respect, gem prices are what they have always been and gem store items are 99% cosmetic changes ( excluding boosts and gathering tools). Therefore by definition, they are premium/luxury items, not affecting regular mechanics of the game.

If the price **seems** to high for you, don't buy it. As mentioned, not all items are marketed at all people.

 

[Aridon.8362]

25 dollars for a mount skin...no thanks.

[ZeftheWicked.3076]

> @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:

> > @"ZeftheWicked.3076" said:

>

> >Not to mention the very high price in rl money for gems.

> > As things are on more then one occasion i chose to grind for ingame gold and exchange it for gems, rather then throw a few $ at you, because of the high prices and low real money:gem ratio...

>

>

> Although I'm sure your knowledge of economic strategies is superb and you are a master of pricing, marketing, purchasing and selling of all varieties of virtual items and commodities, I would still question if you are in any way correct.

> ANet probably have a whole department who have analysed at which price, how many people will buy what product and set the level appropriately to maximize profit. Of course some people think the price is too high, they are not the target audience.

> With all due respect, gem prices are what they have always been and gem store items are 99% cosmetic changes ( excluding boosts and gathering tools). Therefore by definition, they are premium/luxury items, not affecting regular mechanics of the game.

> If the price **seems** to high for you, don't buy it. As mentioned, not all items are marketed at all people.

>

 

....and then one who is not from USA (read: me) recalls how **price of gw2 did change depending on country sold** (cheaper in poorer countries).

Also as i said b4 - this does not phase me - i'm good at making gold ingame and trading it for gems. It's a-net that sufferes because their "micro transactions" are hardly micro and a lot of ppl are walking away from the deal. Their loss not mine. I'm just letting them know.

[Lilyanna.9361]

Problem is people have chose that particular price for the premium mount. There were people saying and I quote:

 

"I would rather pay double the price of mounts than EVER paying to go through RNG"

 

A sizable amount of people said that?, Don't believe me? Go through the hundreds of pages and see if I'm lying. The players brought it upon themselves and the store just listen.

 

Players really don't understand how much power they have or how self-destructing they can truly be to each other. Everyone wants to point fingers at a company, but what the PLAYER pays for and what the PLAYER tolerates is what ANY company responds to. They give a price, no sale? Change it. If they are sales? BAM! It stays there. It is clear premiums are handing more money than RNG (even though people turned down a good/cheap alternative)

 

Yes there is some basic economic and marketing strategies that Anet has to enact, but after that the decisions are alllll on you guys. And well, hate to break it to ya buds, y'all chose. The community chose. And it seems like the actual in-game folk speak louder than forum folk.

[Einlanzer.1627]

> @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:

> > @"ZeftheWicked.3076" said:

>

> >Not to mention the very high price in rl money for gems.

> > As things are on more then one occasion i chose to grind for ingame gold and exchange it for gems, rather then throw a few $ at you, because of the high prices and low real money:gem ratio...

>

>

> Although I'm sure your knowledge of economic strategies is superb and you are a master of pricing, marketing, purchasing and selling of all varieties of virtual items and commodities, I would still question if you are in any way correct.

> ANet probably have a whole department who have analysed at which price, how many people will buy what product and set the level appropriately to maximize profit. Of course some people think the price is too high, they are not the target audience.

> With all due respect, gem prices are what they have always been and gem store items are 99% cosmetic changes ( excluding boosts and gathering tools). Therefore by definition, they are premium/luxury items, not affecting regular mechanics of the game.

> If the price **seems** to high for you, don't buy it. As mentioned, not all items are marketed at all people.

>

 

See the _companies/executives are hypercompetent_ fallacy. Or, in other words, the _appeal to authority_.

 

News flash - professional economists are wrong way more often than they are right, and most companies don't hire professional economists. In reality, companies and their executives generally don't have a clue what they're doing, and and routinely make poor decisions that undermine their own revenue and long-term health.

 

Charging $25 for skins that are released frequently and can't be used exclusively is a bad marketing decision, because anyone with a lick of sense can see that it's artificially inflated, which is going to embitter a lot of people that want to support this game but don't want to be exploited by cash grab schemes. This can be seen by the numerous conversations about it on the message boards.

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:

> > > @"ZeftheWicked.3076" said:

> >

> > >Not to mention the very high price in rl money for gems.

> > > As things are on more then one occasion i chose to grind for ingame gold and exchange it for gems, rather then throw a few $ at you, because of the high prices and low real money:gem ratio...

> >

> >

> > Although I'm sure your knowledge of economic strategies is superb and you are a master of pricing, marketing, purchasing and selling of all varieties of virtual items and commodities, I would still question if you are in any way correct.

> > ANet probably have a whole department who have analysed at which price, how many people will buy what product and set the level appropriately to maximize profit. Of course some people think the price is too high, they are not the target audience.

> > With all due respect, gem prices are what they have always been and gem store items are 99% cosmetic changes ( excluding boosts and gathering tools). Therefore by definition, they are premium/luxury items, not affecting regular mechanics of the game.

> > If the price **seems** to high for you, don't buy it. As mentioned, not all items are marketed at all people.

> >

>

> See the _companies/executives are hypercompetent_ fallacy. Or, in other words, the _appeal to authority_.

>

> News flash - professional economists are wrong way more often than they are right, and most companies don't hire professional economists. In reality, companies and their executives generally don't have a clue what they're doing, and and routinely make poor decisions that undermine their own revenue and long-term health.

>

> Charging $25 for skins that are released frequently and can't be used exclusively is a bad marketing decision, because anyone with a lick of sense can see that it's artificially inflated, which is going to embitter a lot of people that want to support this game but don't want to be exploited by cash grab schemes. This can be seen by the numerous conversations about it on the message boards.

 

Or they determined that it was more optimal to sell the items at a higher cost based on data they’ve collected over the years. If they saw that they’d make much more money overall with higher prices, chances are they’re going to go that route.

[Einlanzer.1627]

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:

> > > > @"ZeftheWicked.3076" said:

> > >

> > > >Not to mention the very high price in rl money for gems.

> > > > As things are on more then one occasion i chose to grind for ingame gold and exchange it for gems, rather then throw a few $ at you, because of the high prices and low real money:gem ratio...

> > >

> > >

> > > Although I'm sure your knowledge of economic strategies is superb and you are a master of pricing, marketing, purchasing and selling of all varieties of virtual items and commodities, I would still question if you are in any way correct.

> > > ANet probably have a whole department who have analysed at which price, how many people will buy what product and set the level appropriately to maximize profit. Of course some people think the price is too high, they are not the target audience.

> > > With all due respect, gem prices are what they have always been and gem store items are 99% cosmetic changes ( excluding boosts and gathering tools). Therefore by definition, they are premium/luxury items, not affecting regular mechanics of the game.

> > > If the price **seems** to high for you, don't buy it. As mentioned, not all items are marketed at all people.

> > >

> >

> > See the _companies/executives are hypercompetent_ fallacy. Or, in other words, the _appeal to authority_.

> >

> > News flash - professional economists are wrong way more often than they are right, and most companies don't hire professional economists. In reality, companies and their executives generally don't have a clue what they're doing, and and routinely make poor decisions that undermine their own revenue and long-term health.

> >

> > Charging $25 for skins that are released frequently and can't be used exclusively is a bad marketing decision, because anyone with a lick of sense can see that it's artificially inflated, which is going to embitter a lot of people that want to support this game but don't want to be exploited by cash grab schemes. This can be seen by the numerous conversations about it on the message boards.

>

> Or they determined that it was more optimal to sell the items at a higher cost based on data they’ve collected over the years. If they saw that they’d make much more money overall with higher prices, chances are they’re going to go that route.

 

Or, they're just making guesses and don't actually know what they're doing. You know, the same thing that happens in most companies.

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:

> > > > > @"ZeftheWicked.3076" said:

> > > >

> > > > >Not to mention the very high price in rl money for gems.

> > > > > As things are on more then one occasion i chose to grind for ingame gold and exchange it for gems, rather then throw a few $ at you, because of the high prices and low real money:gem ratio...

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Although I'm sure your knowledge of economic strategies is superb and you are a master of pricing, marketing, purchasing and selling of all varieties of virtual items and commodities, I would still question if you are in any way correct.

> > > > ANet probably have a whole department who have analysed at which price, how many people will buy what product and set the level appropriately to maximize profit. Of course some people think the price is too high, they are not the target audience.

> > > > With all due respect, gem prices are what they have always been and gem store items are 99% cosmetic changes ( excluding boosts and gathering tools). Therefore by definition, they are premium/luxury items, not affecting regular mechanics of the game.

> > > > If the price **seems** to high for you, don't buy it. As mentioned, not all items are marketed at all people.

> > > >

> > >

> > > See the _companies/executives are hypercompetent_ fallacy. Or, in other words, the _appeal to authority_.

> > >

> > > News flash - professional economists are wrong way more often than they are right, and most companies don't hire professional economists. In reality, companies and their executives generally don't have a clue what they're doing, and and routinely make poor decisions that undermine their own revenue and long-term health.

> > >

> > > Charging $25 for skins that are released frequently and can't be used exclusively is a bad marketing decision, because anyone with a lick of sense can see that it's artificially inflated, which is going to embitter a lot of people that want to support this game but don't want to be exploited by cash grab schemes. This can be seen by the numerous conversations about it on the message boards.

> >

> > Or they determined that it was more optimal to sell the items at a higher cost based on data they’ve collected over the years. If they saw that they’d make much more money overall with higher prices, chances are they’re going to go that route.

>

> Or, they're just making guesses and don't actually know what they're doing. You know, the same thing that happens in most companies.

 

Or you’re making all of that based on your opinions that may have little to no facts to back it up.

[Einlanzer.1627]

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > > > > @"MarshallLaw.9260" said:

> > > > > > @"ZeftheWicked.3076" said:

> > > > >

> > > > > >Not to mention the very high price in rl money for gems.

> > > > > > As things are on more then one occasion i chose to grind for ingame gold and exchange it for gems, rather then throw a few $ at you, because of the high prices and low real money:gem ratio...

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Although I'm sure your knowledge of economic strategies is superb and you are a master of pricing, marketing, purchasing and selling of all varieties of virtual items and commodities, I would still question if you are in any way correct.

> > > > > ANet probably have a whole department who have analysed at which price, how many people will buy what product and set the level appropriately to maximize profit. Of course some people think the price is too high, they are not the target audience.

> > > > > With all due respect, gem prices are what they have always been and gem store items are 99% cosmetic changes ( excluding boosts and gathering tools). Therefore by definition, they are premium/luxury items, not affecting regular mechanics of the game.

> > > > > If the price **seems** to high for you, don't buy it. As mentioned, not all items are marketed at all people.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > See the _companies/executives are hypercompetent_ fallacy. Or, in other words, the _appeal to authority_.

> > > >

> > > > News flash - professional economists are wrong way more often than they are right, and most companies don't hire professional economists. In reality, companies and their executives generally don't have a clue what they're doing, and and routinely make poor decisions that undermine their own revenue and long-term health.

> > > >

> > > > Charging $25 for skins that are released frequently and can't be used exclusively is a bad marketing decision, because anyone with a lick of sense can see that it's artificially inflated, which is going to embitter a lot of people that want to support this game but don't want to be exploited by cash grab schemes. This can be seen by the numerous conversations about it on the message boards.

> > >

> > > Or they determined that it was more optimal to sell the items at a higher cost based on data they’ve collected over the years. If they saw that they’d make much more money overall with higher prices, chances are they’re going to go that route.

> >

> > Or, they're just making guesses and don't actually know what they're doing. You know, the same thing that happens in most companies.

>

> Or you’re making all of that based on your opinions that may have little to no facts to back it up.

 

Right, I'm the one doing that.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

>

> See the _companies/executives are hypercompetent_ fallacy. Or, in other words, the _appeal to authority_.

 

The "other side" is also engaging in fallacious arguments.

 

+ Argument from ignorance.

+ Proof by assertion.

+ Psychologist's fallacy.

+ Appeal to consequences.

 

> News flash - professional economists are wrong way more often than they are right, and most companies don't hire professional economists.

 

So do amateur "economists."

 

> In reality, companies and their executives generally don't have a clue what they're doing, and and routinely make poor decisions that undermine their own revenue and long-term health.

 

Granted. Assuming ANet are doing so in this case is not a given.

 

> Charging $25 for skins that are released frequently and can't be used exclusively is a bad marketing decision, because anyone with a lick of sense can see that it's artificially inflated, which is going to embitter a lot of people that want to support this game but don't want to be exploited by cash grab schemes. This can be seen by the numerous conversations about it on the message boards.

 

Anyone with a lick of sense should also be able to see that selling random item consumables is a marketing strategy used to entice people to spend more money than they otherwise would. Those don't seem to be going away, either. Predicting dire financial consequences based on the idea that a random collection of consumers will act consistently and in their best interests seems to be a fool's errand.

[Einlanzer.1627]

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> >

> > See the _companies/executives are hypercompetent_ fallacy. Or, in other words, the _appeal to authority_.

>

> The "other side" is also engaging in fallacious arguments.

>

> + Argument from ignorance.

> + Proof by assertion.

> + Psychologist's fallacy.

> + Appeal to consequences.

>

> > News flash - professional economists are wrong way more often than they are right, and most companies don't hire professional economists.

>

> So do amateur "economists."

>

> > In reality, companies and their executives generally don't have a clue what they're doing, and and routinely make poor decisions that undermine their own revenue and long-term health.

>

> Granted. Assuming ANet are doing so in this case is not a given.

>

> > Charging $25 for skins that are released frequently and can't be used exclusively is a bad marketing decision, because anyone with a lick of sense can see that it's artificially inflated, which is going to embitter a lot of people that want to support this game but don't want to be exploited by cash grab schemes. This can be seen by the numerous conversations about it on the message boards.

>

> Anyone with a lick of sense should also be able to see that selling random item consumables is a marketing strategy used to entice people to spend more money than they otherwise would. Those don't seem to be going away, either. Predicting dire financial consequences based on the idea that a random collection of consumers will act consistently and in their best interests seems to be a fool's errand.

 

Your points would all be valid if I was trying to make predictions as an amateur economist. That's not what I'm doing. I'm simply agreeing that certain items are very clearly overpriced in the gem store, and it leads to me spending _less_ money than I otherwise would.