Thank you for listening, ANet. (Re: Mount Adoption Licenses)

[Fremtid.3528]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> > Do you by chance happen to have those numbers? No? I thought not. So, your whole premise is based on an assumption that you have not and cannot prove. It's my guess at this point that ANet priced the 1200 gem skins based on the Mountgate feedback, setting it in the high range of amounts people said they'd be willing to pay to avoid RNG.

>

> Which is a very cynical and self-limiting approach, given how many more players said that they would be more willing to purchase at a lower price than that. I have no doubt that they have and will make sales at the 1200 pricepoint. I also have no doubt that they would make a lot *more* sales at lower pricepoints. Look at the skins they have right now. There are fifteen of them. Of those, I'm sure that maybe five to ten of them will sell decently well at 1200 gems. The rest, I'm sure will sell almost no copies at 1200, and the *only* players to be wearing them will be people who got them in random rolls. That should not be the case, they should all be priced at a level where they sell roughly equal numbers, with the less popular ones having prices that make them enough of a bargain that people pick them up anyway.

>

> > They may not have per-unit costs to consider, but they will have revenue targets.

>

> And I believe that the best way to hit those targets is to mobilize every potential customer possible.

>

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> >Rather than looking at specific items compared to the price of the game, why not compare it to other games which require you to purchase the game, pay a subscription and buy the skin?

>

> Because that's a different game, with a different business model, which may work for them, but may not work at all for GW2 or its players. It's useful to *consider* such things, but it's not really evidence for or against what would be appropriate for GW2. You might point to a game like WoW, for example, which routinely gets away with schemes that NO other game could possibly even consider, but obviously "better deal than WoW, is not a standard any game company could take any pride in. You could also look to various other games that offer *much* more generous terms, with skins in the $1-2 range. Is that appropriate for GW2 skins? Maybe, maybe not. The question is what works for GW2, not what the other guys are doing.

>

> >Because if we're speaking realistically, you could go months and months without spending a single gem only to see something you really like and end up spending 1 month's worth of gems once and proceed to not buy anything else for however many months afterward.

>

> And I do just that, but I ONLY spend money when I believe that the deal being offered is a sound one. When I feel that the company in question is overcharging for a particular item, I am repulsed from buying it, or even in the worst case, where I actually do buy that one thing, I'm doubly suspicious of any future offers for months afterward. The flipside of that is that when I feel like I'm being offered a good deal, I will buy up things left and right. I mean, back when Steam was running actual Steam Sales, I bought up dozens of $3-10 games that I still haven't even installed!

 

Yeah but not every customer is you. A lot of customers of this game take pride in and even brag that that they've been playing this game five plus years and never spent a "dime/penny/younamewhatevercurrencytheyliketospout" on it, and those people use server costs and while them being in the game despite not contributing toward it is still healthy for the game because the game needs a healthy population the game has bills to pay. So while they HAD to cut the cost of the expansion to keep dudes and girls like them in the game for populations sake they also had to raise the cost of things that sell in the gemstore to keep the game running. Which is exactly why you see things like WELL this mount skin costs HALF the price of the expansion! Because the expansion wasn't nearly as expensive as it should've been. And honestly for as much as they gave away in core I think they just created a bunch of gimmie clientele because like half of the stuff we get for free should be locked behind a paywall because it's not a sub game. If you've ever played a sub game and your sub ran out you'd understand. Like I have no idea how anet is still in business. But it's clear they're trying their best to stay in business.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Fremtid.3528" said:

> Yeah but not every customer is you. A lot of customers of this game take pride in and even brag that that they've been playing this game five plus years and never spent a "dime/penny/younamewhatevercurrencytheyliketospout" on it,

 

Well sure, but again, **they are irrelevant to this conversation.**

 

We are not remotely discussing "those who will never ever ever pay." I mean, they have their roles to play in things, but it is not here, in this conversation.

 

*Here,* we are discussing customers who can pay, do pay, and will pay, *under the right conditions.*

 

More specifically, we are discussing the ones who believe that a flat rate of 1200 gems per skin is unreasonably high for every skin in the Istani pack, but who would be willing to purchase those skins at a reduced price.

 

My assertion is that enough such people exist to make up for any shortfall caused by the pricing difference.

 

>Because the expansion wasn't nearly as expensive as it should've been.

 

Nah. The expansion was competitively priced in the marketplace. They couldn't reasonably have charged more for it. And again, they can charge whatever they choose for items in the gem store, but charging more per item does not mean more total profits. It's better to sell a dozen skins at 600 gems than five at 1200.

 

> If you've ever played a sub game and your sub ran out you'd understand.

 

I've been playing MMOs since Kunark, so plenty of them have been sub games, but the thing is, the sub model died out before GW2 launched, because it no longer worked for the customers. I agree that they need to make money to keep the game working, they just need to do so with a more attractive pricepoint per item. Again, I would be willing to give them more than I currently do, and we can have a conversation about the best ways to do that, but I don't want to spend more on an item than I feel it should be worth.

[Lindaklingomat.1253]

Yes thank you A-net :) It is very nice for those of us that have the worst luck =)

[DutchRiders.2871]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said:

> >That is what they are doing.. the only difference is they are allowing the players to determine which is the better skin to them and charge them more for the one off choice.. the rest fall under the second price of, not so sought after hence lower gem/random choice.

>

> But that's the problem, let's say that I really want a couple of skins, but I also sort of want a few others. I don't want to ever pay 1200 for those others, I don't want them that much, but at the same time, I *would* pay money for them, just not that much. But then if I went the RNG route, then I might end up with one of the many skins that I don't want at all, so that would be a complete waste of my money. This is why I think they should just charge fairly for the skins. Let players buy the expensive ones that they want at expensive prices, and the cheap ones they want at cheap prices.

>

> >Anyhow it's simple by or don't buy.. and be done with it.

>

> And that's what I'm doing, but I'm *also* advocating for something better.

>

 

Ya can all complain but fact of the matter is Anet gets more money this way. They tried selling gliders at 400 -800g, it did not generate enough revenue.

[Donutdude.9582]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

>

> Just wanted to respond to this point, as the previous points made I don't particularly disagree with. But this....

>

> Rather than looking at specific items compared to the price of the game, why not compare it to other games which require you to purchase the game, pay a subscription and buy the skin? It's disingenuous to divide the game's price as a measuring stick when you do not have to pay a subscription to play the game nor do you actually require the skin. Because if we're speaking realistically, you could go months and months without spending a single gem only to see something you really like and end up spending 1 month's worth of gems once and proceed to not buy anything else for however many months afterward.

>

> Is that actually unreasonable?

>

>

I understand your point. The benefits of B2P vs P2P must be balanced out with microtransactions to ensure game stability and continued development. Indeed, I embrace such a philosophy and I am happy to invest my hard-earned coin. However, I still feel aggravated by the pricing on this occasion. I feel a less-aggressive price of 800 gems would have been more appropriate. From my point of view, it evokes a better, more positive response & will likely lead to a purchase or two. Sadly, 1,200 gems is just a touch too much and is a real shame.

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"DutchRiders.2871" said:

> Ya can all complain but fact of the matter is Anet gets more money this way.

 

I don't believe that.

 

>They tried selling gliders at 400 -800g, it did not generate enough revenue.

 

Only when they tried to sell the wrong gliders.

 

I think the honest argument on their side is "we'd like to make some "dull" gliders and mount skins, because we know some people like them, but we also know that there isn't high demand for them, so they don't tend to sell well at a low pricepoint." I can empathize with that. I don't think RNG loot boxes are the best way to do that, because RNG loot boxes are *never* the best way, and I don't think that selling them individually all at the highest price is the best way, because it strongly discourages people picking up all the ones they might want.

 

I think that if they genuinely cannot turn a profit selling the "high demand" skins for ~1200 and the "lower demand" ones at half that or less, then how about this as a compromise, **sell tiered selector bundles.**

 

Here's my theory, divide up the existing skins into "Rare, Uncommon, and Common" varieties, the Rares being the very fancy ones that attract a lot of attention, the Uncommons being the ones that have a lot of work in the modelling but are still fairly "mundane" (no shade on the artists, many of these are gorgeous), and the "commons" being the ones that are basically just pallet swaps of existing models.

 

Then, instead of offering an RNG loot box, or a fixed bundle of 4-5 skins, offer a bundle of *selectors.* For a set price, maybe 1600-2000 gems, you would get a bundle that contains exactly one "Rare" selector, from which you can pull *any* Rare skin of your choice, one "Uncommon" selector, and two "Common" selectors. From these you could select any four skins, just so long as they were within that tier. You could also maybe combine the lower ones 1+1 = 1 to get the next tier, allowing you to combine the lower three into a single extra Rare if you preferred. Perhaps you could buy each tier of selector directly, but at about twice the price per selector as if you went into the bundle, so really it wouldn't be worth it unless you *really* just wanted the one.

 

This would solve several problems:

1. It's not RNG, and therefore not corrupting.

2. It ensures that ANet gets a certain amount of money, a "large purchase" out of the deal.

3. It allows players to pick up the more common skins they might sort of want, without having them feel they got gouged with "premium" prices.

4. It ensures that the Common skins have value to the process, even without RNG shoving them onto players.

 

Make sense? Seem fair? I'm just spitballing on it, the exact numbers are up in the air, but I think it makes sense.

[Tachenon.5270]

Hey, marketing peoples! I really like the savannah monitor and striped jarin skins. Offer them today at 600 gems each and I will merrily buy them. How about it?

[Farowin.2896]

Honestly all the crying about having to pay for luxury cosmetics is making me love all my mount skins that much more >.>

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> Because that's a different game, with a different business model, which may work for them, but may not work at all for GW2 or its players. It's useful to *consider* such things, but it's not really evidence for or against what would be appropriate for GW2. You might point to a game like WoW, for example, which routinely gets away with schemes that NO other game could possibly even consider, but obviously "better deal than WoW, is not a standard any game company could take any pride in. You could also look to various other games that offer *much* more generous terms, with skins in the $1-2 range. Is that appropriate for GW2 skins? Maybe, maybe not. The question is what works for GW2, not what the other guys are doing.

>

 

I didn't present the argument as evidence, I presented it to dismiss another argument.

 

The argument that "this gemstore item costs 1/x'th of the game's price!" is a disengenuous statement that doesn't take into account the necessity of the item, it's impact on your play time, the variability and or the overall system of aesthetics of the game. It's an argument used to indirectly compare its pricing metrics to those of other games. Not that you cannot compare other games, but it is inherently wrought with inconsistencies and inequalities and thus likely disengenuous. For instance, whatever the price Wow mounts are compared to GW2, can you get mounts in game? Yes you can, but can you dye them? No you can't. They are not the same but people will still try to make the comparisons while disregarding these differences.

 

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> >Because if we're speaking realistically, you could go months and months without spending a single gem only to see something you really like and end up spending 1 month's worth of gems once and proceed to not buy anything else for however many months afterward.

>

> And I do just that, but I ONLY spend money when I believe that the deal being offered is a sound one. When I feel that the company in question is overcharging for a particular item, I am repulsed from buying it, or even in the worst case, where I actually do buy that one thing, I'm doubly suspicious of any future offers for months afterward. The flipside of that is that when I feel like I'm being offered a good deal, I will buy up things left and right. I mean, back when Steam was running actual Steam Sales, I bought up dozens of $3-10 games that I still haven't even installed!

 

This doesn't sound positive at all. Frivilous purchasing isn't something one needs to fight for. If anything, you should be glad that GW2 didn't take a mobile cashop approach of cash-only $1-$5 purchases left and right as it's simply preying on the weak willed frivilous spender. It might be more lucrative but does anyone actually want that? Imagine GW2, no gold-to-gems, transmutation charges used depending on your gear, needing dozens of them just to change 1 piece of gear, wardrobe unlocks cost $1 and character bound, all loot bags require keys....but hey, your mount skin is only $5.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Donutdude.9582" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> >

> > Just wanted to respond to this point, as the previous points made I don't particularly disagree with. But this....

> >

> > Rather than looking at specific items compared to the price of the game, why not compare it to other games which require you to purchase the game, pay a subscription and buy the skin? It's disingenuous to divide the game's price as a measuring stick when you do not have to pay a subscription to play the game nor do you actually require the skin. Because if we're speaking realistically, you could go months and months without spending a single gem only to see something you really like and end up spending 1 month's worth of gems once and proceed to not buy anything else for however many months afterward.

> >

> > Is that actually unreasonable?

> >

> >

> I understand your point. The benefits of B2P vs P2P must be balanced out with microtransactions to ensure game stability and continued development. Indeed, I embrace such a philosophy and I am happy to invest my hard-earned coin. However, I still feel aggravated by the pricing on this occasion. I feel a less-aggressive price of 800 gems would have been more appropriate. From my point of view, it evokes a better, more positive response & will likely lead to a purchase or two. Sadly, 1,200 gems is just a touch too much and is a real shame.

>

 

Just wanted to respond that I agree with your post, but to me it's less about the volume of gems for the skins but instead the volume of skins. It feels like they are too aggressively pushing mounts-4-profit and not diversifying their added content enough. If they wanted to get me to spend 20,000 gems, add Tengu as a playable race for 8,000, a few outfits for them and specific plummage and colors only accessible through a makeover kit.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

>The argument that "this gemstore item costs 1/x'th of the game's price!" is a disengenuous statement that doesn't take into account the necessity of the item, it's impact on your play time, the variability and or the overall system of aesthetics of the game.

 

But it is still fair to point out that in the marketplace of 2018, there are plenty of games out there where the full game experience only costs $10-15. It's a reference that this is not "chump change" in the gaming space, it's an amount worth considering before making the purchase.

 

>This doesn't sound positive at all. Frivilous purchasing isn't something one needs to fight for. If anything, you should be glad that GW2 didn't take a mobile cashop approach of cash-only $1-$5 purchases left and right as it's simply preying on the weak willed frivilous spender. It might be more lucrative but does anyone actually want that? Imagine GW2, no gold-to-gems, transmutation charges used depending on your gear, needing dozens of them just to change 1 piece of gear, wardrobe unlocks cost $1 and character bound, all loot bags require keys....but hey, your mount skin is only $5.

 

That's a separate situation. I don't make frivolous purchases either, I never bought transmutation charges and gave up on Black Lion keys immediately. It's not about having lots of "junk" purchases, it's about charging a fair amount for the skins so that they feel like a good value.

 

>If they wanted to get me to spend 20,000 gems, add Tengu as a playable race for 8,000, a few outfits for them and specific plummage and colors only accessible through a makeover kit.

 

You do understand that if they could afford to add a new playable race for 8000 gems, then they could offer mount skins for like 2 gems, right? A new playable race would be a **massive** undertaking by comparison to a mount skin.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> You do understand that if they could afford to add a new playable race for 8000 gems, then they could offer mount skins for like 2 gems, right? A new playable race would be a **massive** undertaking by comparison to a mount skin.

 

It depends on how you implement additional races. I'm assuming you're assuming that if Anet adds a new race, it'll just be plopped in and anything you can do with other races, you'll be able to do with a new one.

 

Considering the people that are either in favor or desperate for new races have gone so far as to suggest "race tonics", I don't believe it'd ever be feasible to add any new races that mirror perfectly the current ones but would be willing to accept certain compromises.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > You do understand that if they could afford to add a new playable race for 8000 gems, then they could offer mount skins for like 2 gems, right? A new playable race would be a **massive** undertaking by comparison to a mount skin.

>

> It depends on how you implement additional races. I'm assuming you're assuming that if Anet adds a new race, it'll just be plopped in and anything you can do with other races, you'll be able to do with a new one.

>

> Considering the people that are either in favor or desperate for new races have gone so far as to suggest "race tonics", I don't believe it'd ever be feasible to add any new races that mirror perfectly the current ones but would be willing to accept certain compromises.

 

Even a relatively minor implementation would be a massive deal. I mean, just being able to equip armor on them would be a lot of work.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > You do understand that if they could afford to add a new playable race for 8000 gems, then they could offer mount skins for like 2 gems, right? A new playable race would be a **massive** undertaking by comparison to a mount skin.

> >

> > It depends on how you implement additional races. I'm assuming you're assuming that if Anet adds a new race, it'll just be plopped in and anything you can do with other races, you'll be able to do with a new one.

> >

> > Considering the people that are either in favor or desperate for new races have gone so far as to suggest "race tonics", I don't believe it'd ever be feasible to add any new races that mirror perfectly the current ones but would be willing to accept certain compromises.

>

> Even a relatively minor implementation would be a massive deal. I mean, just being able to equip armor on them would be a lot of work.

 

You're still assuming. And it's not really on topic.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > > You do understand that if they could afford to add a new playable race for 8000 gems, then they could offer mount skins for like 2 gems, right? A new playable race would be a **massive** undertaking by comparison to a mount skin.

> > >

> > > It depends on how you implement additional races. I'm assuming you're assuming that if Anet adds a new race, it'll just be plopped in and anything you can do with other races, you'll be able to do with a new one.

> > >

> > > Considering the people that are either in favor or desperate for new races have gone so far as to suggest "race tonics", I don't believe it'd ever be feasible to add any new races that mirror perfectly the current ones but would be willing to accept certain compromises.

> >

> > Even a relatively minor implementation would be a massive deal. I mean, just being able to equip armor on them would be a lot of work.

>

> You're still assuming. And it's not really on topic.

 

Anything more complex than the Kodan tonic would take a lot of work, period. No assumptions necessary, it is fact. The only debate to be had would be in whether that work would be worth doing.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > > > You do understand that if they could afford to add a new playable race for 8000 gems, then they could offer mount skins for like 2 gems, right? A new playable race would be a **massive** undertaking by comparison to a mount skin.

> > > >

> > > > It depends on how you implement additional races. I'm assuming you're assuming that if Anet adds a new race, it'll just be plopped in and anything you can do with other races, you'll be able to do with a new one.

> > > >

> > > > Considering the people that are either in favor or desperate for new races have gone so far as to suggest "race tonics", I don't believe it'd ever be feasible to add any new races that mirror perfectly the current ones but would be willing to accept certain compromises.

> > >

> > > Even a relatively minor implementation would be a massive deal. I mean, just being able to equip armor on them would be a lot of work.

> >

> > You're still assuming. And it's not really on topic.

>

> Anything more complex than the Kodan tonic would take a lot of work, period. No assumptions necessary, it is fact. The only debate to be had would be in whether that work would be worth doing.

 

Again, you're assuming. You're assuming the work involved's cost, the options they'd have, the type of implementation as well as the debating points.

 

For example, you're assuming that the race I'm talking about would only be 8000 gems, but it would obviously be a part of an expansion which would require a cash purchase as well. So no, it's not 8000 gems, it'd be 8000 gems + the price of the next expansion also without knowing the direction and selling points of said expansion. Like I said, you're assuming how it's implemented. To clarify or argue the hypothetical point, you'd have to go on a further tangent.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> Again, you're assuming. You're assuming the work involved's cost, the options they'd have, the type of implementation as well as the debating points.

 

I'm making only the most basic assumptions on the scenario provided, such as "water it not easily flammable."

 

> For example, you're assuming that the race I'm talking about would only be 8000 gems, but it would obviously be a part of an expansion which would require a cash purchase as well.

 

If it's part of an expansion then it's part of an expansion. If they were to say "Yeah, we're putting out a $30 expansion, and if you buy that, you don't get any new races, but we will *allow* you to buy an 8000 gem DLC for a DLC," oh, the firestorm that would ensue. Can we just agree that you're making a silly argument here and move on to something else?

 

 

[Ashen.2907]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> You having a subjective opinion does not negate the fact that there is also a consensus view, which may or may not coincide with that personal opinion. They are two completely separate concepts. Just because you have a subjective opinion that may differ from the consensus does not mean that the consensus does not matter. When dealing with a commercial product, subjective opinions *in aggregate,* **do matter.**

 

I have never claimed that subjective opinions do not matter. Of course they do. I merely pointed out that opinions regarding cosmetics were subjective, not objective.

 

But opinions do not become objective by being shared. There was a point in time where a consensus (or near enough for discussion) existed that the earth was the center of the universe.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > You having a subjective opinion does not negate the fact that there is also a consensus view, which may or may not coincide with that personal opinion. They are two completely separate concepts. Just because you have a subjective opinion that may differ from the consensus does not mean that the consensus does not matter. When dealing with a commercial product, subjective opinions *in aggregate,* **do matter.**

>

> I have never claimed that subjective opinions do not matter. Of course they do. I merely pointed opinions regarding cosmetics were subjective, not objective.

 

Yes, but can we agree that this distinction makes no difference whatsoever to the topic at hand, and that raising it is more pedantry than leading to a productive result? Maybe someone *says* "objective" when what they actually meant was "consensus viewpoint," but at the end of the day the result is fairly identical for all practical purposes. It's like when someone mentions "centrifugal force" and someone else needs to chime in with "well actually. . ."

 

> But opinions do not become objective by being shared. There was a point in time where a consensus (or near enough for discussion) existed that the earth was the center of the universe.

 

But again, we're discussing a commercial product here, so consensus opinions *do* matter. There is no "fact" as to which skin is best, but the consensus opinion as to which skin is best is *as valuable as a fact would be* in all ways that are at all relevant to this particular discussion.

[Ashen.2907]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > You having a subjective opinion does not negate the fact that there is also a consensus view, which may or may not coincide with that personal opinion. They are two completely separate concepts. Just because you have a subjective opinion that may differ from the consensus does not mean that the consensus does not matter. When dealing with a commercial product, subjective opinions *in aggregate,* **do matter.**

> >

> > I have never claimed that subjective opinions do not matter. Of course they do. I merely pointed opinions regarding cosmetics were subjective, not objective.

>

> Yes, but can we agree that this distinction makes no difference whatsoever to the topic at hand, and that raising it is more pedantry than leading to a productive result? Maybe someone *says* "objective" when what they actually meant was "consensus viewpoint," but at the end of the day the result is fairly identical for all practical purposes. It's like when someone mentions "centrifugal force" and someone else needs to chime in with "well actually. . ."

>

> > But opinions do not become objective by being shared. There was a point in time where a consensus (or near enough for discussion) existed that the earth was the center of the universe.

>

> But again, we're discussing a commercial product here, so consensus opinions *do* matter. There is no "fact" as to which skin is best, but the consensus opinion as to which skin is best is *as valuable as a fact would be* in all ways that are at all relevant to this particular discussion.

 

Absolutely, a consensus among a customer base for a product can be impactful, even if it is highly unlikely. If such does exist it has the potential to make the developer's job much easier. If they know exactly what the customer base desires then there is much less wasted effort developing elements that end up not being sufficiently popular to merit their cost (both in resources and opportunity).

 

The importance of plurality of opinion is why I don't generally ask for the removal of things that I dislike about the game. I know that others (and who knows if they represent a majority or merely outnumber me) enjoy things that I do not.

 

But, if someone tries to claim that their preference in cosmetics is objectively better than others', in an apparent effort to sway development, it is worth attempting to explain the difference between objective and subjective (in the hope that they are merely misinformed rather than purposefully attempting to misinform others).

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > Again, you're assuming. You're assuming the work involved's cost, the options they'd have, the type of implementation as well as the debating points.

>

> I'm making only the most basic assumptions on the scenario provided, such as "water it not easily flammable."

>

> > For example, you're assuming that the race I'm talking about would only be 8000 gems, but it would obviously be a part of an expansion which would require a cash purchase as well.

>

> If it's part of an expansion then it's part of an expansion. If they were to say "Yeah, we're putting out a $30 expansion, and if you buy that, you don't get any new races, but we will *allow* you to buy an 8000 gem DLC for a DLC," oh, the firestorm that would ensue. Can we just agree that you're making a silly argument here and move on to something else?

>

>

 

No, we won't agree to that.

 

You're dead set on assuming what would be included in the expansion or what features would be unlocked with them and the reaction by the public of a hypothetical addition to an expansion. We can agree that you're making assumption of a hypothetical that hasn't been fully explained.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> But, if someone tries to claim that their preference in cosmetics is objectively better than others', in an apparent effort to sway development, it is worth attempting to explain the difference between objective and subjective (in the hope that they are merely misinformed rather than purposefully attempting to misinform others).

 

But again, it's a purely pedantic argument, in most cases, because most people *don't* claim that their personal opinion is objective, what they actually claim is that there *is* an "objective position" on the issue, by which they actually mean that there exists a consensus position on the matter. Explaining the difference accomplishes nothing other than to distract from the actual topic at hand. If you understand what they mean, then react to what they mean, not their poor word choice. Sometimes it's just more expeditious to call the monster "Frankenstein."

 

 

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > But, if someone tries to claim that their preference in cosmetics is objectively better than others', in an apparent effort to sway development, it is worth attempting to explain the difference between objective and subjective (in the hope that they are merely misinformed rather than purposefully attempting to misinform others).

>

> But again, it's a purely pedantic argument, in most cases, because most people *don't* claim that their personal opinion is objective, what they actually claim is that there *is* an "objective position" on the issue, by which they actually mean that there exists a consensus position on the matter. Explaining the difference accomplishes nothing other than to distract from the actual topic at hand. If you understand what they mean, then react to what they mean, not their poor word choice. Sometimes it's just more expeditious to call the monster "Frankenstein."

>

>

 

I sure wish you would have done that when replying to my hypothetical "you want me to spend money? well do [insert here]" post rather than drawing out what you think I meant or asserting stipulations on the mentioned price stated and drug out a back-and-forth for half a page.

[Danikat.8537]

Late reply but I've been away and I wanted to add my thanks for this system!

 

I've not yet decided how many of the new mounts I want, and therefore whether it's worth buying individual licences for the ones I want or getting the whole lot, but I _really_ appreciate having that option. It's a big improvement over having to gamble and hope you get the one/s you want, or having to buy the entire lot.

[Tekoneiric.6817]

IMHO I think the problem is that ANet got the negative spotlight shined on last year for jumping into the dark waters of RNG and the powers that be at ANet got upset at the negative press so with the new RNG mount skins they did revenge pricing at 3x the rate of RNG for people who dare to want choose the skins they want.

 

If someone uses RNG or not ANet gets their money when people buy the skins. Given that the mechanics for mounts have been programmed already and paid for as part of PoF; mount skins can't be that much more difficult to make than a elaborate glider skin. The price of glider skins is reasonable at the typical 500 gems and they don't use RNG.

 

I'm sure we all expect a bit of a markup for mount skins and non-RNG mount skins however 3x the prices is way to high for a mount skin especially given that they price RNG mount skins at 400. 3x the price for being able to chose the skin you want is revenge pricing pure and simple for players daring to shine that negative spotlight on ANet last year.

 

500 for simple skins that just change the texture/color channels, 750 gems for somewhat more elaborate skins with particle effects and 1000 for really high end skins is a reasonable price point for mount skins. I've gotten a few of the seasonal skin packs for 1600 gems with gold to gem conversion. When I do gold to gem conversions I catch it at off times to get a favorable rate and avoid spiking the conversions rates to much.

 

Here's what my partner and I have spent quite a bit of money on Guild Wars related content in the past; Deluxe GW1 plus all of it's expansions for both of us, I've bought GW1 as gifts, unopened extra GW1 copies I have in a box, GW2, HoT for both of us (ultimate I think), We definitely got the ultimate on PoF for both of us and a bunch of gem cards. Neither of us will spend a cent on the game until ANet fixes this. My partner likes to quote the 3rd Ferengi Rules of Acquisition: "Never spend more for an acquisition than you have to."