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

[zealex.9410]

> @"Substance E.4852" said:

> > @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

> > > @"Sorin Noroku.5342" said:

> > > The people who keep the gem=gold prices stable are those who just can’t be bothered to farm more money. Those credit card warriors are what helps the casual players. They keep gems low because they’re being lazy and don’t want to farm gold for mats.

> >

> > That's all there is to say really.

> >

> > ------------

> >

> > Look guys, you wanted an alternative way. You got it. Now if you don't like the price, do like literally any other gemstore item that you think is overpriced: Don't buy it.

> > ANY other complain just manage to make you sound like hypocrites. The main complain last time was that it was RNG with no alternative way. You won, don't be salty that it's not exactly what you wanted, some of us warned you that it wouldn't be 400/600 gems for a chosen mount.

> >

> > Surely if you can ignore the permanent stylist contract, you can ignore that too.

> >

>

> You get a company to change their practices by verbalizing your distaste with how they are currently operating.

>

> This wouldn't even be an option if people hadn't told Anet that they didn't like the previous system.

>

> People really need to stop acting like criticism of a for profit corporation is akin to insulting a personal friend.

 

And ppl need to stop forgeting that Anet is a business that needs to make money. The change wasnt about the pricing, they have made it perfectly clear that mounts are expensive and adding a targeted purchase option isnt gonna change that.

[Zeem.2564]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> > @"Substance E.4852" said:

> > > @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

> > > > @"Sorin Noroku.5342" said:

> > > > The people who keep the gem=gold prices stable are those who just can’t be bothered to farm more money. Those credit card warriors are what helps the casual players. They keep gems low because they’re being lazy and don’t want to farm gold for mats.

> > >

> > > That's all there is to say really.

> > >

> > > ------------

> > >

> > > Look guys, you wanted an alternative way. You got it. Now if you don't like the price, do like literally any other gemstore item that you think is overpriced: Don't buy it.

> > > ANY other complain just manage to make you sound like hypocrites. The main complain last time was that it was RNG with no alternative way. You won, don't be salty that it's not exactly what you wanted, some of us warned you that it wouldn't be 400/600 gems for a chosen mount.

> > >

> > > Surely if you can ignore the permanent stylist contract, you can ignore that too.

> > >

> >

> > You get a company to change their practices by verbalizing your distaste with how they are currently operating.

> >

> > This wouldn't even be an option if people hadn't told Anet that they didn't like the previous system.

> >

> > People really need to stop acting like criticism of a for profit corporation is akin to insulting a personal friend.

>

> And ppl need to stop forgeting that Anet is a business that needs to make money. The change wasnt about the pricing, they have made it perfectly clear that mounts are expensive and adding a targeted purchase option isnt gonna change that.

 

This. There's nothing 'distasteful' about what they're doing. Just people who can't afford stuff and feel entitled to a discount.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Sorin Noroku.5342" said:

> We also need to be reasonable. Other games have a $15 a MONTH charge PER player for a single account AND THEN charge $15-$20 for mounts that are purely cosmetic and for a SINGLE CHARACTER, with $35-$50 for one for the entire account.

 

That's no longer a reasonable standard. The number of games that can actually pull that off in 2018 can be counted on two fingers, and GW2 is neither of them. That may have been the norm once, but not since before GW2 launched. $15 for a mount skin is too high a price, particularly for a "non-premium" one.

 

>There was a post saying “make it use ingame gold” and using “150 for rng, and 450 for single selectable”. Considering current gold>gem prices, that IS PRETTY MUCH the cost.

 

That person was wrong. I am not that person.

 

>Also, they DONT make money off of gold>gems, and if they DO, it’s FAR LESS than gems>gold. BECAUSE the game throws gold at you.

 

Again, you don't seem to understand how the system works. EVERY gem up for sale was bought using cash money. *Every - single - one.* If players switched to ONLY buying gems with gold, then what would happen is the exchange rate would go up, and up, and up, until it took tens of thousands of gold to purchase a single gem. It's an exchange currency. The current gem-gold price is a reflection of how many people are currently buying gems with cash, to sell them for gold, as much as it is the other way around, and again, ANet makes MORE money on that trade, because they take a cut of the transaction.

 

>There are people that sell raids, they get the money from people farming ectos, they sell ectos to people who make money playing the game, they have 5k gold, they spent $0, and just buy the mounts.

 

Yes, but it also means that some *other* player spent enough cash money to buy 5000 gold worth of gems, and put them on the exchange, plus another. . . 15% or so transaction fee.

 

> @"Moonlit.6421" said:

> > @"Isanox.3498" said:

> > With all the negativity and laws being drafted about Loot box gambling, and gambling to minor you think the devs would have learned. But nope. $5 to gamble for a skin or $15 to buy one.

>

> Go play WoW then and pay $15 a month just to play the game good Lord.

 

It was because of NOT wanting to do that which brought me to games like GW2 in the first place. I'm perfectly willing to give GW2 money, I pre-ordered the game, I preordered HoT, I preordered PoF, all with the $90 package, and a decent number of gem purchases in between. I have no problem spending money on the game, *when* I feel that the prices listed are being fair to me as a consumer. I just resent being asked to pay more for something than I feel it should be worth. I would rather drop twice as much on a product and come out of it feeling like I got a fair value for my money, than to spend half as much and feel like I got cheated. It's not about the cost, it's about the cost/value.

 

> @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

>Look guys, you wanted an alternative way. You got it. Now if you don't like the price, do like literally any other gemstore item that you think is overpriced: Don't buy it.

 

Which is the current plan, but *while* doing that I can also offer customer feedback as to how they could do better, so that instead fo me *not* buying it, I would instead *buy it.*

 

>ANY other complain just manage to make you sound like hypocrites. The main complain last time was that it was RNG with no alternative way. You won, don't be salty that it's not exactly what you wanted, some of us warned you that it wouldn't be 400/600 gems for a chosen mount.

 

It was the correct argument at the time, the predatory loot boxes *were* wrong and are *still* wrong. But this is not a "victory" by any stretch, they did wrong, they recieved pushback, and they retreated to a position that is *still* wrong. If a restaurant asks $20 for tap water, and you complain, and they cut the price to $10, that's not them "making it right," it's just making it slightly less wrong. It's not unreasonable to keep complaining until they *actually* fix the problem.

 

> @"Sorin Noroku.5342" said:

> > @"preacher.9370" said:

> > just looked through the new mount skins, theres 4 i'd like to have, which means OVER $50 in gems.... or take chances with rng and potentially pay more then that....

>

> If there’s 4 you want, buy the rng ones. You’re 1 skin want away from being the price it is for all 15.

 

-which is still too high.

[Ashen.2907]

There is nothing inherently wrong with expressing an opinion that an item's pricing is higher than one is willing to pay.

 

It is a bit off, in my opinion, to demonize the company, and its employees, because one would rather pay less for purely cosmetic luxury options.

[Majirah.5089]

> @"Zeem.2564" said:

> > @"zealex.9410" said:

> > > @"Substance E.4852" said:

> > > > @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

> > > > > @"Sorin Noroku.5342" said:

> > > > > The people who keep the gem=gold prices stable are those who just can’t be bothered to farm more money. Those credit card warriors are what helps the casual players. They keep gems low because they’re being lazy and don’t want to farm gold for mats.

> > > >

> > > > That's all there is to say really.

> > > >

> > > > ------------

> > > >

> > > > Look guys, you wanted an alternative way. You got it. Now if you don't like the price, do like literally any other gemstore item that you think is overpriced: Don't buy it.

> > > > ANY other complain just manage to make you sound like hypocrites. The main complain last time was that it was RNG with no alternative way. You won, don't be salty that it's not exactly what you wanted, some of us warned you that it wouldn't be 400/600 gems for a chosen mount.

> > > >

> > > > Surely if you can ignore the permanent stylist contract, you can ignore that too.

> > > >

> > >

> > > You get a company to change their practices by verbalizing your distaste with how they are currently operating.

> > >

> > > This wouldn't even be an option if people hadn't told Anet that they didn't like the previous system.

> > >

> > > People really need to stop acting like criticism of a for profit corporation is akin to insulting a personal friend.

> >

> > And ppl need to stop forgeting that Anet is a business that needs to make money. The change wasnt about the pricing, they have made it perfectly clear that mounts are expensive and adding a targeted purchase option isnt gonna change that.

>

> This. There's nothing 'distasteful' about what they're doing. Just people who can't afford stuff and feel entitled to a discount.

 

This is exactly what it is. I doubt it’s even a matter of “can’t afford” and more a matter of “don’t want to pay”. If the select option was 400 gems and the rng option was 150 I know there would be people who would cry about having to pay 400 to select when rng is only 150. It would be the same “it’s not fair...it’s too expensive....Anet is trash for doing rng....this game is so greedy” bull crap.

 

The only difference is there would be slightly more people who would see the complaining for what it is - entitled people that don’t want to pay for stuff. The complaining would only stop if everything was free and didn’t require any effort to obtain. Except then people would complain about not having anything to do.

 

You just can’t please some people and unfortunately the perpetually displeased lot is usually the loudest lot.

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> There is nothing inherently wrong with expressing an opinion that an item's pricing is higher than one is willing to pay.

>

> It is a bit off, in my opinion, to demonize the company, and its employees, because one would rather pay less for purely cosmetic luxury options.

 

I don't think anyone is demonizing any employees that had nothing to do with this decision, I don't blame their environmental artists or sound designers for the price of mount skins. But there is at least one employee there, likely a handful, who had some role to play in deciding that this was a good idea, that the loot box was a good idea, that the 1200 gems was a "reasonable compromise," and while I don't feel these people were "demons," I do feel they made a serious mistake, and I do hold them responsible for the decisions they made. Everyone is responsible for the decisions they make.

[Shadowzerk.4715]

> @"Moonlit.6421" said:

> Go play WoW then and pay $15 a month just to play the game good Lord. People ask and beg to have mounts added to the game and they get them. Then people want skins for the mounts, they get them. Then people don't like the mounts are rng, everyone says they'd be happy just to have an option to buy the one skin they wanted even for a higher price, and sure enough here it is and look at that people are still complaining. Get over it and buy the skin you want, or don't in which case you can either go back to enjoying the game just as you were before today because it is a skin and you don't NEED it, or go somewhere else. Pick one, I don't care which, and get over it. I teach 3rd graders who don't whine as much as some of the adults in here. And thank you to all those people who made positive comments about how it's a positive step or your happy with the new option, I might not have lived through all the salt in this thread without your help.

 

maybe thats the reason why ppl are willing to go back to wow?

srsly, i paid my money for gems and those ppl exchange gold to gems, and anet is unwilling to listen to their customers.

im paying $15(sometimes, more than 15) a month to anet, as anet's customer i really dont like the price in BLTP

imo, i believe eanet will lose more customers when WoW classic servers and Camelot Unchained (cos WvW sux) released, and because gw2 has no monthly fees, pls do give me a reason why i should keep paying $15~20 amonth to anet if im unhappy?

 

[Ashen.2907]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > There is nothing inherently wrong with expressing an opinion that an item's pricing is higher than one is willing to pay.

> >

> > It is a bit off, in my opinion, to demonize the company, and its employees, because one would rather pay less for purely cosmetic luxury options.

>

> I don't think anyone is demonizing any employees that had nothing to do with this decision, I don't blame their environmental artists or sound designers for the price of mount skins. But there is at least one employee there, likely a handful, who had some role to play in deciding that this was a good idea, that the loot box was a good idea, that the 1200 gems was a "reasonable compromise," and while I don't feel these people were "demons," I do feel they made a serious mistake, and I do hold them responsible for the decisions they made. Everyone is responsible for the decisions they make.

 

Disagreeing with another's decision does not make the decision a mistake for which they need to be held accountable.

 

The skins are their property and so their choice on pricing. We, as consumers, are of course entitled to decide whether or not to buy at any given price point. If a product does not move at a given price point it will likely see price reductions in order to meet sales goals.

 

Is it possible that the 1200gems is a mistake? Of course. If the items do not meet sales expectations set by the company, and if price is the reason for the missed goals, then a mistake may have been made.

[Hyper Cutter.9376]

> @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

> Even glider skins aren't that cheap.

Yes, they are. Standalone glider skins are 400 or 500 gems depending on the specific glider, and even the glider/backpack bundles are only 700.

[Ashen.2907]

> @"Shadowzerk.4715" said:

> > @"Moonlit.6421" said:

> > Go play WoW then and pay $15 a month just to play the game good Lord. People ask and beg to have mounts added to the game and they get them. Then people want skins for the mounts, they get them. Then people don't like the mounts are rng, everyone says they'd be happy just to have an option to buy the one skin they wanted even for a higher price, and sure enough here it is and look at that people are still complaining. Get over it and buy the skin you want, or don't in which case you can either go back to enjoying the game just as you were before today because it is a skin and you don't NEED it, or go somewhere else. Pick one, I don't care which, and get over it. I teach 3rd graders who don't whine as much as some of the adults in here. And thank you to all those people who made positive comments about how it's a positive step or your happy with the new option, I might not have lived through all the salt in this thread without your help.

>

> maybe thats the reason why ppl are willing to go back to wow?

> srsly, i paid my money for gems and those ppl exchange gold to gems, and anet is unwilling to listen to their customers.

> im paying $15(sometimes, more than 15) a month to anet, as anet's customer i really dont like the price in BLTP

> imo, i believe eanet will lose more customers when WoW classic servers and Camelot Unchained (cos WvW sux) released, and because gw2 has no monthly fees, pls do give me a reason why i should keep paying $15~20 amonth to anet if im unhappy?

>

 

There is no reason for you to continue to spend money here if you do not enjoy the game and are unhappy with your purchases. Just as there was no reason for me to maintain my WoW subscription when I found the gameplay to be unenjoyable.

 

Be a good consumer. Dont spend your entertainment budget on something that you do not enjoy.

[cyndelaq.7148]

What I don't understand about this whole thing is that Anet has a product that they know people will buy. They know people will buy it... Why not just charge a reasonable price? Or stop with the gambling bs all together and just release mount packs? Are add an in-game, "menagerie", npc that allows you to choose the mount you want then increase the price of the licenses to 800 gems? They'll make money regardless of how they do it so why not be reasonable? Because who in their right mind, that's struggling to make ends meet, is going to drop $100/$150 on this?

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > There is nothing inherently wrong with expressing an opinion that an item's pricing is higher than one is willing to pay.

> > >

> > > It is a bit off, in my opinion, to demonize the company, and its employees, because one would rather pay less for purely cosmetic luxury options.

> >

> > I don't think anyone is demonizing any employees that had nothing to do with this decision, I don't blame their environmental artists or sound designers for the price of mount skins. But there is at least one employee there, likely a handful, who had some role to play in deciding that this was a good idea, that the loot box was a good idea, that the 1200 gems was a "reasonable compromise," and while I don't feel these people were "demons," I do feel they made a serious mistake, and I do hold them responsible for the decisions they made. Everyone is responsible for the decisions they make.

>

> Disagreeing with another's decision does not make the decision a mistake for which they need to be held accountable.

>

> The skins are their property and so their choice on pricing. We, as consumers, are of course entitled to decide whether or not to buy at any given price point. If a product does not move at a given price point it will likely see price reductions in order to meet sales goals.

>

> Is it possible that the 1200gems is a mistake? Of course. If the items do not meet sales expectations set by the company, and if price is the reason for the missed goals, then a mistake may have been made.

 

Obviously.

 

>Be a good consumer. Dont spend your entertainment budget on something that you do not enjoy.

 

I'm just really curious, this is a VERY common response to anyone making a consumer complaint about something.

 

Why?

 

I mean what is the point of it?

 

Of course people won't buy something they don't think is a good deal, that *literally* goes without saying.

 

But they are also choosing to leave their feedback as to how the company could *earn* their purchase.

 

So, just roll with me on this one, because I have a theory. My theory is that when people *say* "just don't buy it," they might not actually be trying to leave useful advice to that person about their spending habits, they might be *aware* of how redundant this advice might be. My theory is, perhaps what this person actually means is "stop expressing your negative opinions about something that does not bother me personally."

 

I don't really see the point, but to each his own.

 

 

[Leo G.4501]

> @"cyndelaq.7148" said:

> What I don't understand about this whole thing is that Anet has a product that they know people will buy. They know people will buy it... Why not just charge a reasonable price? Or stop with the gambling bs all together and just release mount packs? Are add an in-game, "menagerie", npc that allows you to choose the mount you want then increase the price of the licenses to 800 gems? They'll make money regardless of how they do it so why not be reasonable? Because who in their right mind, that's struggling to make ends meet, is going to drop $100/$150 on this?

>

 

You answered your own question: "Why not just charge a reasonable price?" "...Anet has a product that they know people will buy."

 

What I don't understand is there are people getting super kitten-hurt about what Anet is charging for some of these skins or the delivery method of some of these skins....emphasis on "some". If you want mount pack bundles for cheaper, you got it. If you want to only purchase 1 mount of your choosing rather than "gamble" or get bogged down with extras that you don't want, you got it. If you want mount skins for relatively cheap, you got it. What people seem to *really* want is cheap mount bundles that only include mounts that you pick and choose...basically everything short of just giving you things for free. Does that sound about right?

[inubasiri.8745]

I'll never trust what Mo says again. No more gem purchases for me. Ever. Have fun Anet.

(and here I thought the gem store was going in the right direction again)

[OtakuModeEngage.8679]

Lets talk overpriced: homes, cars, computors, cell phones, rent: they cost waaaaaaaaay more to buy than they do to build. Theres no way we should have to pay that much money, but does anyone complain? Do we have the ability to set or demand prices, do we cry about them and say they are too much? No. The merchant sets the price, all we do is decide whether to pay it or not.

 

If 1200gems/$15 for a mount skin(not much different than outfits, armor set skins, and glider skins) is too much for you to afford, and/or you dont think the skin is worth that much, dont buy it. If you think its worth it and can afford it, then buy it. Its as simple as that. Remember guild wars 2 releases free content every 2~3 months or so, and they have to find some way to fund their work. The office needs electricity, the servers need connection, programmers,voice actors, ect need roofs over their heads and food on the tables for their families. This is not a charity, its a business and they need to make money. Either you like the product and buy it, or you dont.

 

As for making the rng skins cheaper, of course they are, no one would buy them if their wasnt a discount/advantage. But if you do the math and you want only 1~4 specific skins, its actually cheaper to spend the 1200 on the select pack than it is to try your luck with rng.

 

Also, for the claims of 'this is gambling' the legal definition of gambling requires risk of loss. With this rng pack you are guarenteed to get a new item each time, there is zero risk.

 

So stop complaining. Many said "take my wallet, i want mount skins, ill pay whatever price" before the mount skins became available. When they were released many complained, "the problems not the price, its that i cant choose what i want." Its ironic that now that we have them AND can choose what we want, suddenly the price matters now. Stop being problem finders and be thankful for the solutions that have been provided. ANet is listening, and is responding, but at the end of the day, its a business and they still need money.

[TheOrlyFactor.8341]

> @"Majirah.5089" said:

> > @"Matick.4132" said:

> > Ah, the old argument of ‚the others‘!

> >

> > I don’t give a kitten about others.

> > If they skrew around with players money and RNG, fine, I don’t care (well, in broader terms of the gaming world itself, I sure do).

> >

> > 1200g = 15$/€ <- kitten?! Are you even listening to yourself, 15$/€ for a skin?

> > When the whole expansion was 60/80?!

> > (or 30, the cheap one, right?)

> >

> > If it’d be 500/700, like all the other skins, sure. I’d buy 3-5, maybe even more, which would be reasonable PLUS more income for ANet in the end.

> >

> > But with RNG as cheap bait and ridiculous pricing for ‘choosing’, I’m keeping my money and it’s none/zero/nada in the end!

> >

> >

>

> You seem to forget that Anet needs constant income to keep the game running and to continue developing it. An expansion pack costing 50-80 bucks isn’t going to cut it. They don’t charge a subscription fee. They charge for cosmetics. $15 for a skin is very reasonable given how inexpensive it is to play this game.

>

> People just want things to be super cheap and are mad when it’s not. Tough luck.

 

More like people don't want to spend any money on this game at all and yet somehow expect Anet to just magically continue to develop content without a source of income.

 

And because of this (unpopular opinion incoming), I'm starting to believe that giving people the ability to convert gold to gems was a mistake. :\

[Ashen.2907]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > > There is nothing inherently wrong with expressing an opinion that an item's pricing is higher than one is willing to pay.

> > > >

> > > > It is a bit off, in my opinion, to demonize the company, and its employees, because one would rather pay less for purely cosmetic luxury options.

> > >

> > > I don't think anyone is demonizing any employees that had nothing to do with this decision, I don't blame their environmental artists or sound designers for the price of mount skins. But there is at least one employee there, likely a handful, who had some role to play in deciding that this was a good idea, that the loot box was a good idea, that the 1200 gems was a "reasonable compromise," and while I don't feel these people were "demons," I do feel they made a serious mistake, and I do hold them responsible for the decisions they made. Everyone is responsible for the decisions they make.

> >

> > Disagreeing with another's decision does not make the decision a mistake for which they need to be held accountable.

> >

> > The skins are their property and so their choice on pricing. We, as consumers, are of course entitled to decide whether or not to buy at any given price point. If a product does not move at a given price point it will likely see price reductions in order to meet sales goals.

> >

> > Is it possible that the 1200gems is a mistake? Of course. If the items do not meet sales expectations set by the company, and if price is the reason for the missed goals, then a mistake may have been made.

>

> Obviously.

>

> >Be a good consumer. Dont spend your entertainment budget on something that you do not enjoy.

>

> I'm just really curious, this is a VERY common response to anyone making a consumer complaint about something.

>

> Why?

>

> I mean what is the point of it?

>

> Of course people won't buy something they don't think is a good deal, that *literally* goes without saying.

>

> But they are also choosing to leave their feedback as to how the company could *earn* their purchase.

>

> So, just roll with me on this one, because I have a theory. My theory is that when people *say* "just don't buy it," they might not actually be trying to leave useful advice to that person about their spending habits, they might be *aware* of how redundant this advice might be. My theory is, perhaps what this person actually means is "stop expressing your negative opinions about something that does not bother me personally."

>

> I don't really see the point, but to each his own.

>

>

 

He asked a question. I answered it.

 

Further, he implied that he was spending money on something with which he was unhappy. A suggestion that he not continue to make himself unhappy is not redundant.

 

[Majirah.5089]

> @"cyndelaq.7148" said:

> What I don't understand about this whole thing is that Anet has a product that they know people will buy. They know people will buy it... Why not just charge a reasonable price? Or stop with the gambling bs all together and just release mount packs? Are add an in-game, "menagerie", npc that allows you to choose the mount you want then increase the price of the licenses to 800 gems? They'll make money regardless of how they do it so why not be reasonable? Because who in their right mind, that's struggling to make ends meet, is going to drop $100/$150 on this?

>

 

They are charging a price that they deem reasonable. As do many of the consumers. I think it’s a very reasonable price. I also did not have a problem with the first set of mount licenses. Nor do I have a problem with the 2k mounts. Or the themed packs for 1.6k. There are plenty of options for people with different preferences.

 

Not everyone is struggling to make ends meet. It’s unfortunate for those that are. I was there for several years. But Anet isn’t a charity and can’t price their items based on people who do not have disposable income. It’s a game and therefore not necessary for life. Add the fact that these are skins not necessary to play the game. People who do not have a lot of disposable income have to do what I did. Save up for the things I wanted that were not necessities. Sometimes it took months or even years to do so, but a lot can be learned from that experience.

[Eramonster.2718]

It's a fair price if you do the math. Marketing perspective, this time it make sense.

15 skins (3 for each mount type). 400gem for RNG or 1200gems to pick to avoid getting repeats/unneeded skins especially to those already with a skin they like (eg. Those with premium skins probably won't want any other skins for that particular mount type).

 

There's no clear standard value to aesthethic imo. Eg. You can compare a slice of pizza with a loaf of bread. Do you judge which is better base on weight, texture, taste or filling? In the end it's a choice of preference or whether if it's worth it. Just like how some players chosed 1600 for the Branded Mounts Pack(5), they might not like all the skins but still bought it cause it's a good deal. It's a fair price in this business, but just not what some players hoped for which is cheaper = better (need to wait for a sale for that :) if there's any in the future). Personally, I've already gotten the skins I wanted from the previous set, going to skip this one since there's none that interest me.

[Deihnyx.6318]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> So, just roll with me on this one, because I have a theory. My theory is that when people say "just don't buy it," they might not actually be trying to leave useful advice to that person about their spending habits, they might be aware of how redundant this advice might be. My theory is, perhaps what this person actually means is "stop expressing your negative opinions about something that does not bother me personally."

> I don't really see the point, but to each his own.

 

What you (and some others) don't understand is that Anet is already meeting us halfway.

And instead of at least admitting it, and then simply saying "still too overpriced for me" (which is ok, which some people did, thanks to them) they immediately find another way to blame them for something else.

And seriously, to these people, I wonder if they have the interest of the game in mind. Cause if all they care about is want everything always cheaper, sorry to say, but we don't "need" them to finance the game.

1200 is too expensive, 800 will be too expensive, 400 will be too expensive. This is completely subjective and so blaming a company in general is pointless. There's always going to be people complaining about the core aspect of micro transactions. If they didn't want them they shouldn't have joined a game that has no monthly fee.

 

So yes, you are allowed to say this is too expensive for you. But if -some- people start criticizing a company for trying to make money (typically by comparing the price of the core game and any gemstore item), they will face another kind of loyal fan base that understands that a game needs its own financing. Your voice matters, and so is ours. Your argument has to work both ways.

 

And finally, not everyone also has to agree that premiums skins should be cheap for everyone. This is certainly not the definition I have of premium skin.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > @"Ohoni.6057" said:

> > > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > > There is nothing inherently wrong with expressing an opinion that an item's pricing is higher than one is willing to pay.

> > > >

> > > > It is a bit off, in my opinion, to demonize the company, and its employees, because one would rather pay less for purely cosmetic luxury options.

> > >

> > > I don't think anyone is demonizing any employees that had nothing to do with this decision, I don't blame their environmental artists or sound designers for the price of mount skins. But there is at least one employee there, likely a handful, who had some role to play in deciding that this was a good idea, that the loot box was a good idea, that the 1200 gems was a "reasonable compromise," and while I don't feel these people were "demons," I do feel they made a serious mistake, and I do hold them responsible for the decisions they made. Everyone is responsible for the decisions they make.

> >

> > Disagreeing with another's decision does not make the decision a mistake for which they need to be held accountable.

> >

> > The skins are their property and so their choice on pricing. We, as consumers, are of course entitled to decide whether or not to buy at any given price point. If a product does not move at a given price point it will likely see price reductions in order to meet sales goals.

> >

> > Is it possible that the 1200gems is a mistake? Of course. If the items do not meet sales expectations set by the company, and if price is the reason for the missed goals, then a mistake may have been made.

>

> Obviously.

>

> >Be a good consumer. Dont spend your entertainment budget on something that you do not enjoy.

>

> I'm just really curious, this is a VERY common response to anyone making a consumer complaint about something.

>

> Why?

>

> I mean what is the point of it?

>

> Of course people won't buy something they don't think is a good deal, that *literally* goes without saying.

>

> But they are also choosing to leave their feedback as to how the company could *earn* their purchase.

>

> So, just roll with me on this one, because I have a theory. My theory is that when people *say* "just don't buy it," they might not actually be trying to leave useful advice to that person about their spending habits, they might be *aware* of how redundant this advice might be. My theory is, perhaps what this person actually means is "stop expressing your negative opinions about something that does not bother me personally."

>

> I don't really see the point, but to each his own.

>

>

 

I think you're reading too far into it. Sometimes, people just enjoy criticizing things, for instance, look at all the individuals criticizing Anet and the devs for the pricing decisions they implemented.

 

It just so happens, when people criticize others, their criticism is also open for criticism. Yes, your opinion can be criticized. If you don't like it, you can just not express your opinion...or you can just ask the mods to censor anyone who doesn't agree with you...or only express your opinions in places where you have the power to censor others...or you can discuss the criticism....or just ignore it. It's your choice :anguished:

[Rysdude.3824]

> @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

> And just as expected, people are still complaining.

> ANET did listen, they did remove the RNG factor, but I guess the problem wasn't really RNG after all :-)

>

> It almost makes me want to go back to the old thread and have a good laugh at all these people saying they would love paying for mounts but not for RNG... complain on this very thread now.

>

> Anet: Sell it 400G/500G in game. These people will never stop complaining, but maybe they will be fooled by that. They don't complain about RNG in game anyway.

 

LOL well said, and I agree! I think Anet did a fair job this time around! Great designs and extremely affordable. I bought the few I wanted and not stuck with skins I didnt want. Good job!

[Vyrulisse.1246]

> @"Deimos.4263" said:

> There's no question they did *not* listen. They just calculated what they could get away with.

>

> This is *exactly* the same tactic as last time around. Offer 400 gems for RNG skins. Provide a high-ticket offering (last time it was a 2000 gem premium skin, this time it's a 1200 gem skin) to make the 400 gems for RNG skins seem reasonable. It still isn't.

 

This is the truth. It's literally the same thing and people are falling for it like they do with every microtransaction controversy. Introduce something unpopular? Pull it for awhile then "reintroduce" it later slightly altered and with flowery announcements.

[Plautze.6290]

The moment I read about selectable mount skins for a higher price I knew, I simply KNEW(!) that another babyrage was on its way.

"We would gladly pay more for a skin of our choice"... you got what you asked for and you still complain. Hypocrites! Getting what you asked for was never your goal, but to keep complaining. But instead of encouraging ANet to keep on listening to you, you go ahead and perfectly demonstrate that it makes absolutely no sense to listen to you as you will always keep on complaining.

"ANet, give us everything for free!" Not even then will you guys be satisfied. I can only shake my head in disgust! This is just the ultimate example of how one should not react when they get what they asked for. If I were ANet, I'd consider twice before I listen to those guys again.

 

Solution: If you don't like the pricing, don't buy the skins. Easy as that. Raging on the forums while basking in the beauty of the recently bought Orca skimmer skin will not have the desired effect on ANet.

 

ANet, thank you for listening! You are definitely on the right way!

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Majirah.5089" said:

> > @"cyndelaq.7148" said:

> > What I don't understand about this whole thing is that Anet has a product that they know people will buy. They know people will buy it... Why not just charge a reasonable price? Or stop with the gambling bs all together and just release mount packs? Are add an in-game, "menagerie", npc that allows you to choose the mount you want then increase the price of the licenses to 800 gems? They'll make money regardless of how they do it so why not be reasonable? Because who in their right mind, that's struggling to make ends meet, is going to drop $100/$150 on this?

> >

>

> They are charging a price that they deem reasonable. As do many of the consumers. I think it’s a very reasonable price. I also did not have a problem with the first set of mount licenses. Nor do I have a problem with the 2k mounts. Or the themed packs for 1.6k. There are plenty of options for people with different preferences.

>

> Not everyone is struggling to make ends meet. It’s unfortunate for those that are. I was there for several years. But Anet isn’t a charity and can’t price their items based on people who do not have disposable income. It’s a game and therefore not necessary for life. Add the fact that these are skins not necessary to play the game. People who do not have a lot of disposable income have to do what I did. Save up for the things I wanted that were not necessities. Sometimes it took months or even years to do so, but a lot can be learned from that experience.

 

Nobody's asking them to be charitable. This is in their own best interests. Better to sell 10,000 skins at $5 a pop than to sell 1,000 skins at $15 a pop. I imagine at least some people will buy at least some of the skins at the current prices, but I think it's fair to assume that they could sell a lot more at a more reasonable pricepoint. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "affordability," it's about what price people believe is *fair,* and you're free to judge that for yourself, but not for others.

 

> @"Eramonster.2718" said:

>There's no clear standard value to aesthethic imo. Eg. You can compare a slice of pizza with a loaf of bread. Do you judge which is better base on weight, texture, taste or filling?

 

This is a disingenuous argument to make. Are you saying that if you lined all 15 skins up on a board, and said "price five of these at 1200, five of these at 800, and five of these at 400," and gave 100 people that task, that there wouldn't be clear consensus as to which slot *most* of the skins would fit into? I mean obviously individual tastes vary, and some people would really love a skin that was in the lower tier, and that's great, they get a bargain! And others might think one of the ones in the top tier looks stupid, and that's fine too, they don't need to get that one, but I think *most* people would agree on the relative pricing of *most* of the skins, and anyone making marketing decisions would need to be *well* aware of that.

 

> @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

>What you (and some others) don't understand is that Anet is already meeting us halfway.

 

Only because they set their initial offer too far out. That's common business practice. If I want to sell my old junker car, and I say "I want $50,000 for it," and you could back with "that's too much, I'll pay $1,000," and then I respond with "ok, I'll meet you halfway, $24,000." Have I offered you a fair deal, or is that still about ten times the Bluebook value? I fully agree that this is a better offer than the original mount license (which they *still* need to fix), but that doesn't mean that it's automatically the right price for what they are offering.

 

>1200 is too expensive, 800 will be too expensive, 400 will be too expensive. This is completely subjective and so blaming a company in general is pointless. There's always going to be people complaining about the core aspect of micro transactions. If they didn't want them they shouldn't have joined a game that has no monthly fee.

 

And 2400 may be too expensive, and 4800 might be too expensive, and 9600 might be too expensive, but someone would probably pay them at any of those prices, so why not let the slippery slope work both ways and price them all at 192,000 a piece? Surely that would be the best way to fill ANet's coffers, right? Obviously there are some people who have no interest in paying at any price. Let's not worry about them, they are irrelevant to this situation. Right here, right now, we are discussing people who *would* pay, but *only* when they feel they are getting a fair deal.

 

>So yes, you are allowed to say this is too expensive for you. But if -some- people start criticizing a company for trying to make money (typically by comparing the price of the core game and any gemstore item), they will face another kind of loyal fan base that understands that a game needs its own financing. Your voice matters, and so is ours. Your argument has to work both ways.

 

I think it's fair for you to say "I *would* pay that price," and I would certainly not criticize you for doing so. But what is happening her is players attacking *other players* for expressing their *own* purchasing decisions, and that isn't right. If someone says "I would not buy them at that price," then feel free to say "I would," but that doesn't give you call to insult them, to claim that they are too poor, or don't care enough about the game. Their situation and reason for not buying are just as valid as your own for choosing to buy.

 

>And finally, not everyone also has to agree that premiums skins should be cheap for everyone. This is certainly not the definition I have of premium skin.

 

I dismiss the concept of a "premium skin" out of hand then.

 

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> It just so happens, when people criticize others, their criticism is also open for criticism. Yes, your opinion can be criticized. If you don't like it, you can just not express your opinion...or you can just ask the mods to censor anyone who doesn't agree with you...or only express your opinions in places where you have the power to censor others...or you can discuss the criticism....or just ignore it. It's your choice :anguished:

 

Players criticizing ANet's choices are providing consumer feedback. There is a valid place for that. That does not justify criticizing other players for doing so.