Ohoni.6057 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 > @"Leo G.4501" said: > Well I'm not talking about analogies or comparing it to anything, just the concept of lawn mowing and, as a business, taking more lawns for cheaper is completely counter to the business model. Ok, but again, we aren't *actually* talking about lawnmowers here, we're using them in reference to GW2, and the point you raise has no relevance to GW2. >I feel this fact is rather irrelevent if you don't acknowledge that, once you purchase the skin, that product on the shelf is completely useless to you, i.e. an account isn't going to buy that skin designed once more than once... True, but my position is not based on anyone buying the item twice. I'm not saying that if they lowered the price the same person would buy the same skin multiple times, that wouldn't make sense. My argument is that if they lowered the price, people who might buy 1-2 skins that they *really* wanted might also by 3-4 *other* skins that they kind of liked, but not "$15 worth" liked, and that people who wouldn't buy any skins at all at $15 might pick up a few of them at $5 or $10. They're already offering them randomly at an average price of 360 gems a piece if you get all 15. What would be so horrible about offering at least some of them individually for that price or a bit higher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaklex.6308 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > >First, I can almost guarantee that loot boxes won't be regulated in the U.S., not unless Congress wants to rewrite the definition of gambling, which is already in the Federal Register and if you bother to read it, loot boxes do not come close to reaching it for the very fact that you are guaranteed to win something, by definition in the U.S in order for it to be considered gambling there has to be a chance that you get nothing and the house(business) gets everything aka you can lose without getting any prize at all...that doesn't happen with loot boxes. > > That's not true, there is no "chance of receiving nothing" rule in the legal code. The basis for whether or not something is gambling is about whether you have a chance fo *winning* something. If it worked the way you wish it did, then anyone who wanted to have a full stakes casino could open one anywhere they want without any sort of license, all they'd need to do is make sure that you always get a prize on any gamble. Bet $10 on a hand of blackjack. Beat the dealer? Great, you get $20! Dealer beats you? Equally as great, you get a stick of gum! You win no matter what, it's not gambling! > > I don't know where this whole "it's not gambling as long as you get *something* myth even got started, but it certainly makes the rounds. > > Actually there is, I read the section in the Federal Register, you can look it up also, it's not hard to find, just do a search for U.S government legal definition of gambling, it has both statements in it, one is that you have a chance of not winning and if you always get something then it's not legally gambling...that is in the definition in the U.S. Federal Registry, which apparently even Congress doesn't know. I even posted the link in the discussion thread that was on here specifically about RNG and gambling...and a funny thing happened, no one was able to figure out how to go against that legal definition. You're example is a little off base, you're comparing cash money to items, you are buying a virtual good, and you are guaranteed a virtual good, it might not be the virtual good you wanted, but you still get something that you paid for, whether you know what it is or not....it will never stand in a court of law based on the definition as it's currently written, if the gaming industry wants to put up a fight, which I'm not sure they have the balls to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 > @"Zaklex.6308" said: > ctually there is, I read the section in the Federal Register, you can look it up also, it's not hard to find, just do a search for U.S government legal definition of gambling, it has both statements in it, one is that you have a chance of not winning and if you always get something then it's not legally gambling... No, I've read it, and that's not what it says, for obvious reasons. >You're example is a little off base, you're comparing cash money to items, you are buying a virtual good, and you are guaranteed a virtual good, it might not be the virtual good you wanted, but you still get something that you paid for, whether you know what it is or not... And in the Blackjack example, you're buying a stick of gum. Same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreamyAbaddon.3265 Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 I wanted all of them so I just bought the cheap gambling ones until I had all 15. =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OtakuModeEngage.8679 Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 > @"Vyrulisse.1246" said: > > @"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. Like this was all planned? How morbid. They attempted a sales technique with RNG, it wasnt well recieved, so they added an alternative, which is exactly what people were asking for. But now the alternative isnt good enough, cause its still too expensive, despite the fact that the new premiums are cheaper than the old. Theres always something wrong, they fix one problem and you point out another. Honeslty you people will never be happy unless you're given everything for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > Well I'm not talking about analogies or comparing it to anything, just the concept of lawn mowing and, as a business, taking more lawns for cheaper is completely counter to the business model. > > Ok, but again, we aren't *actually* talking about lawnmowers here, we're using them in reference to GW2, and the point you raise has no relevance to GW2. > > >I feel this fact is rather irrelevent if you don't acknowledge that, once you purchase the skin, that product on the shelf is completely useless to you, i.e. an account isn't going to buy that skin designed once more than once... > > True, but my position is not based on anyone buying the item twice. I'm not saying that if they lowered the price the same person would buy the same skin multiple times, that wouldn't make sense. My argument is that if they lowered the price, people who might buy 1-2 skins that they *really* wanted might also by 3-4 *other* skins that they kind of liked, but not "$15 worth" liked, and that people who wouldn't buy any skins at all at $15 might pick up a few of them at $5 or $10. They're already offering them randomly at an average price of 360 gems a piece if you get all 15. What would be so horrible about offering at least some of them individually for that price or a bit higher? But you're only assuming that lowering the price will result in enough sales to net a higher profit.. Like for me, I'm a bit burnt out. The new skins look nice but I have plenty of options and none of these new ones are the dream yanked from my brain and born into the game (I wouldn't have a choice, I'd have to buy a scruffy punk rock springer mount...). Basically, I'm rather done and I'm sure there are some out there who are satisfied with less and more will eventually be sated too. Basically, looking at this as if there's some bottomless well of sales and you just have to adjust the price just right will only get you so far and eventually you're just going to hit a wall. Whether you're right about the price or not, however, can only be supported if we had sales numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OtakuModeEngage.8679 Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 > @"Sir Alymer.3406" said: > Well the whole pack costs 5400 gems which is the cost of 4.5 choice contracts. If you want one of each mount it's actually more cost effective to just buy them all, again, just like last time. Nothing's changed. The attitude of 'buy them all' is still there. Sure, but if you only want 1-4 skins, its cheaper to buy premium than buy all rng... and as most players claim to only want two or three, then you'll definitly save money with premium. If you want more than that, then yes, the RNG pack is better... but if they didnt make the RNG pack have some kind of discount/advantage, no one would buy them. At which point you might as well not even sell them. This is a logical business decision. They DID give us what we asked for: The ability to select the mount we were buying, AND for cheaper premium mounts. But at the end of the day, its a business and they need to make money. Furthermore, as the producer/merchant they get to decide the price, our role as the consumer is to chose whether to buy or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sorin Noroku.5342 Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 @"Ohoni.6057" at this point, you’re feedback seems more like arguing. Feedback could be left and sure defended a bit, but now it’s getting to be every other post, and sectioning our posts and answering things bit by bit, but doing so removes the reason some things are said. My own posts have done this too. In one post you took a generalized “You” to be a personal attack. No one has attacked you. Though you have seemed to come across as attacking myself. Through the gem<->gold topic. Gold->gems does NOT give anet money, Gem->Gold gives anet money, and ALLOWS players to do gold->gems. We understand you believe the current price to not be fair. Fair is subjective, (as hasn’t probably been said 500 times so far!!), so it varies person to person. This thread seems to be pretty heavy on the support side for this action. We’ve seen your side, we understand your side. Please, stop? To rehash, as I believe this post will too be taken out of context, you believe: -RNG is bad -price to select a skin too high -you want to put your money where your mouth is, so to speak, and not spend it on mounts This is all fantastic, but it’s looped back, and not letting the topic move forward any more it seems, as it’s just being repeated on almost every post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > >You charge for as much as they are willing to pay to a point. If you charge $5, how are you even sure that pays for the gas used? Or the oil and upkeep? Or the difficulty of mowing? Some lawns are more time consuming than others. You either charge by the hour, the lawn size and or the labor (edging, level of care) and you charge a set rate for that. If you want to lower the price for an individual, that's on you... But if someone finds out you're cutting other people deals, you might have trouble on your hands. > > I warned you about not breaking the analogy, and now look where we're at. See, we aren't actually talking about lawnmowers, we're using them as an *analogy* for mount skins in the game GW2. In the game, each skin does not cost anything, they design it once, and then that is their fixed cost whether one person buys it or a million people buy it. So no, there is not some "minimal expense" they need to cover for each unit sold. Instead, they only have ONE fixed cost, in this case let's say it's the cost of buying the lawnmower in the first place, and they want to recover and surpass that cost by any means available. So again, back to my analogy, are they best served by mowing three lawns at $10 a piece, or by mowing eight lawns at $5 a piece? Why would you argue they're better off with three? > > > @"Majirah.5089" said: > > Do you think they develop a skin and then just stand around all day not getting paid, using utilities, paying rent, or doing anything? > > Presumably they move on to the next project, but their work on that specific product is done. > > >If they charged a penny for a mount skin then perhaps everyone who plays the game would buy it, but that doesn’t mean it is the most profitable price point. > > Of course not, but nobody is asking for that. Even the most "greedy" pricing requests seem to be plenty high enough for them to make a significant profit. The price points I quoted would make them as much or more than the current model would from a customer who bought out the store using the sale pricing. They would only stand to lose money overall if 1. Nobody new would be buying that wouldn't already be buying at the current rates AND 2. people were choosing to only buy the cheapest available skins, and ignoring the more expensive ones. There are numerous other, more likely combinations of factors that would result in higher overall profits. > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > >This is where analogies come apart. > > >I wouldnt want to do 133% more work (8 jobs vs 3) for only 33% more income. That extra time could be much more effectively used, as demonstrated by the example establishing that a job's increment of time is worth $10. > > You too? > > Again, there is NO point to "breaking an analogy." That proves nothing about the correctness of the actual point being made, it only proves that the analogy isn't 1:1 to the original scenario, which, of course it wouldn't be, because then it would just *be* the original scenario. So *obviously,* as I noted myself, there are differences between mowing a lawn and selling a skin, that's beside the point. If we're going to be sticking to the *relevant* portions of the analogy, we need to recognize that they would NOT be doing more work to service more customers, because that's not how any of this works. > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > >You charge for as much as they are willing to pay to a point. If you charge $5, how are you even sure that pays for the gas used? Or the oil and upkeep? Or the difficulty of mowing? Some lawns are more time consuming than others. You either charge by the hour, the lawn size and or the labor (edging, level of care) and you charge a set rate for that. If you want to lower the price for an individual, that's on you... But if someone finds out you're cutting other people deals, you might have trouble on your hands. > > I warned you about not breaking the analogy, and now look where we're at. See, we aren't actually talking about lawnmowers, we're using them as an *analogy* for mount skins in the game GW2. In the game, each skin does not cost anything, they design it once, and then that is their fixed cost whether one person buys it or a million people buy it. So no, there is not some "minimal expense" they need to cover for each unit sold. Instead, they only have ONE fixed cost, in this case let's say it's the cost of buying the lawnmower in the first place, and they want to recover and surpass that cost by any means available. So again, back to my analogy, are they best served by mowing three lawns at $10 a piece, or by mowing eight lawns at $5 a piece? Why would you argue they're better off with three? > > > @"Majirah.5089" said: > > Do you think they develop a skin and then just stand around all day not getting paid, using utilities, paying rent, or doing anything? > > Presumably they move on to the next project, but their work on that specific product is done. > > >If they charged a penny for a mount skin then perhaps everyone who plays the game would buy it, but that doesn’t mean it is the most profitable price point. > > Of course not, but nobody is asking for that. Even the most "greedy" pricing requests seem to be plenty high enough for them to make a significant profit. The price points I quoted would make them as much or more than the current model would from a customer who bought out the store using the sale pricing. They would only stand to lose money overall if 1. Nobody new would be buying that wouldn't already be buying at the current rates AND 2. people were choosing to only buy the cheapest available skins, and ignoring the more expensive ones. There are numerous other, more likely combinations of factors that would result in higher overall profits. > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > >This is where analogies come apart. > > >I wouldnt want to do 133% more work (8 jobs vs 3) for only 33% more income. That extra time could be much more effectively used, as demonstrated by the example establishing that a job's increment of time is worth $10. > > You too? > > Again, there is NO point to "breaking an analogy." That proves nothing about the correctness of the actual point being made, it only proves that the analogy isn't 1:1 to the original scenario, which, of course it wouldn't be, because then it would just *be* the original scenario. So *obviously,* as I noted myself, there are differences between mowing a lawn and selling a skin, that's beside the point. If we're going to be sticking to the *relevant* portions of the analogy, we need to recognize that they would NOT be doing more work to service more customers, because that's not how any of this works. > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > >You charge for as much as they are willing to pay to a point. If you charge $5, how are you even sure that pays for the gas used? Or the oil and upkeep? Or the difficulty of mowing? Some lawns are more time consuming than others. You either charge by the hour, the lawn size and or the labor (edging, level of care) and you charge a set rate for that. If you want to lower the price for an individual, that's on you... But if someone finds out you're cutting other people deals, you might have trouble on your hands. > > I warned you about not breaking the analogy, and now look where we're at. See, we aren't actually talking about lawnmowers, we're using them as an *analogy* for mount skins in the game GW2. In the game, each skin does not cost anything, they design it once, and then that is their fixed cost whether one person buys it or a million people buy it. So no, there is not some "minimal expense" they need to cover for each unit sold. Instead, they only have ONE fixed cost, in this case let's say it's the cost of buying the lawnmower in the first place, and they want to recover and surpass that cost by any means available. So again, back to my analogy, are they best served by mowing three lawns at $10 a piece, or by mowing eight lawns at $5 a piece? Why would you argue they're better off with three? > > > @"Majirah.5089" said: > > Do you think they develop a skin and then just stand around all day not getting paid, using utilities, paying rent, or doing anything? > > Presumably they move on to the next project, but their work on that specific product is done. > > >If they charged a penny for a mount skin then perhaps everyone who plays the game would buy it, but that doesn’t mean it is the most profitable price point. > > Of course not, but nobody is asking for that. Even the most "greedy" pricing requests seem to be plenty high enough for them to make a significant profit. The price points I quoted would make them as much or more than the current model would from a customer who bought out the store using the sale pricing. They would only stand to lose money overall if 1. Nobody new would be buying that wouldn't already be buying at the current rates AND 2. people were choosing to only buy the cheapest available skins, and ignoring the more expensive ones. There are numerous other, more likely combinations of factors that would result in higher overall profits. > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > >This is where analogies come apart. > > >I wouldnt want to do 133% more work (8 jobs vs 3) for only 33% more income. That extra time could be much more effectively used, as demonstrated by the example establishing that a job's increment of time is worth $10. > > You too? > > Again, there is NO point to "breaking an analogy." That proves nothing about the correctness of the actual point being made, it only proves that the analogy isn't 1:1 to the original scenario, which, of course it wouldn't be, because then it would just *be* the original scenario. So *obviously,* as I noted myself, there are differences between mowing a lawn and selling a skin, that's beside the point. If we're going to be sticking to the *relevant* portions of the analogy, we need to recognize that they would NOT be doing more work to service more customers, because that's not how any of this works. > > As long as the argument against the current price consists of a claim that it isnt reasonable, and the only people with actual data of any sort are the ones setting the current price, chatting about the relevance of a given analogy is as productive as anything else being said. Again, I completely support the idea of a consumer choosing to vote with their wallet. It is how the system is supposed to work. Telling the company how much you would be willing to pay is fantastic. Many companies spend small fortunes trying to get feedback from prospective users of their products. To those giving that sort of feedback, kudos for being good consumers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 > @"OtakuModeEngage.8679" said: > > @"Vyrulisse.1246" said: > > > @"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. > > Like this was all planned? How morbid. They attempted a sales technique with RNG, it wasnt well recieved, so they added an alternative, which is exactly what people were asking for. But now the alternative isnt good enough, cause its still too expensive, despite the fact that the new premiums are cheaper than the old. Theres always something wrong, they fix one problem and you point out another. Honeslty you people will never be happy unless you're given everything for free. The direct purchase price for the skins is indeed lower than for the single skins they've released before, but it's also fair to point out that they are much lower detail than those skins. By most standards, one would *expect* them to be of a lower cost than the Grand Lion, or Peacock, even though plenty of people thought those were overpriced at the time as well. Further, the bundled skins came in at only 320 per skin, which is 80% what the random pull cost for this set is, and 1/4 the cost of the individual selection of skins. This should not be misconstrued as a good deal. I should also reiterate that I'm not saying that 1200 would be too high for *any* skin, just that it's too high for *some* of these skins, the *average* price of them should be lower, and they should allow players to pay a lower price to select some skins than others. > @"Leo G.4501" said: > But you're only assuming that lowering the price will result in enough sales to net a higher profit.. I am, and I think that's a rational assumption under the circumstances, even if that isn't true for yourself, it would be true for others. > Basically, looking at this as if there's some bottomless well of sales and you just have to adjust the price just right will only get you so far and eventually you're just going to hit a wall. I'm not looking at the well as "bottomless," but there is water in there, and they could reach it. > @"Sorin Noroku.5342" said: >In one post you took a generalized “You” to be a personal attack. No one has attacked you. Though you have seemed to come across as attacking myself. Through the gem<->gold topic. Gold->gems does NOT give anet money, Gem->Gold gives anet money, and ALLOWS players to do gold->gems. Yes, but also gold->gems is what *allows* gems->gold to work. If nobody was making that side of the transaction, then the exchange rate would get too high. The system works when people with plenty of money have an interest in buying gold with their gems, to be able to afford ingame items, AND in which players with plenty of gold are willing to sell their gold to acquire gems, to make a purchase on the gem store. Both sides are necessary. My point was, various other posters were implying that if a player *just* earned ingame gold and bought gems with it, that they were something "gaming the system" and "getting the items without paying ANet anything." I was just pointing out to those players that this is how the system is intended to work, that they aren't "gaming" anything, that ANet gets paid *more* when they do this than if they'd just bought the same amount of gems for cash. So long as someone is buying items using gems, then ANet is making the same money, so it's irrelevant to their bottom line how that person acquired those gems. There's nobody at ANet crying "those sneaky jerks, they aren't buying gems with cash, they're buying them with *gold!"* >This thread seems to be pretty heavy on the support side for this action. We’ve seen your side, we understand your side. Please, stop? I am only responding to people who continue to argue the point, to make inaccurate, misleading, or misunderstood counterpoints. I cannot and will not participate in this thread any further than the thread is interested in participating, but if *you* don't feel that you have anything productive to contribute, then nobody is forcing *you* to post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sablephoenix.1593 Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 I can't believe that so many people are thanking ANet for this. We can still either gamble, spending a ludicrous amount of Gems to essentially buy the entire pack to hopefully get the one that we want, or we can spend a vastly overpriced amount of gems to handpick one or two. ANet has given us NOTHING that we didn't have before, except the illusion that we have something we didn't have before. I wish more people understood what the Overton Window was and how it works. It applies to far more than just politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 > @"sablephoenix.1593" said: > I can't believe that so many people are thanking ANet for this. > > We can still either gamble, spending a ludicrous amount of Gems to essentially buy the entire pack to hopefully get the one that we want, or we can spend a vastly overpriced amount of gems to handpick one or two. > > ANet has given us NOTHING that we didn't have before, except the illusion that we have something we didn't have before. > > I wish more people understood what the Overton Window was and how it works. It applies to far more than just politics. Except you and Ohoni seem to miss the crucial facts in all this.. 1 - Having a choice of what you want from the pack comes at a price.. 2 - Players are not forced to buy any of the skins it is a choice each of us has to make.. ANET have decided to offer an additional choice .. play the lucky dip or buy the prize of choice 3 - ANET is a business not a charity, it has to turn a profit on everything it does or we don't get to have nice things and options aside of paying for an expansion pack of goodies. 4 - actually ANET has given us something we didn't have before.. we have the option to only buy 1 skin that we want rather than playing the game of chance. 5 - Lowering prices might yield sales but it doesn't guarantee profit.. ever heard the saying busy fools. 6 - The quality of the skins is kinda like that old saying beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Thinking one skin is worth more than another is kind of subjective.. I like these new skins far more than those 2k skins they pushed out, in fact all the skin packs like branded, wintersday, spooky.. they are all superior in how they look and sound etc in comparison to those luxury priced ones.. but that's just my opinion, others more than likely think different.. and that's the crux of it. As for the price points.. we do not know what they are only ANET knows where the break even is, how much it cost to develop the skins.. and no its not a case of reskin something so no cost.. everything has a cost.. just employing the dev costs and providing the floor space he/she works in, cost ANET. If they are way off on their costing model then players won't buy it so they more than likely used all that data from previous skin sales and remodelled their cost model for this latest foray.. if its still wrong then they will either ajust again next time, keep it the same or just scrap skins altogether because the risk/reward has become too small. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the prices for the skins is right or wrong.. but I am saying for me personally the price feels much more appealing than the 2k options and the quality of the skins to me is just as good if not better.... but I still bought 3 or 4 skins from the random pack, cos actually I liked the look of them all and no matter which skins I got they are all different, which is what it said on the label. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zionka.6897 Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 I think the new setup is perfect. I really, really wanted the bandit griffon, and was tempted to buy just it alone, but I liked quite a few of the others too, so decided to get 5 random. Then if the one I wanted most wasn't in it, I'd buy it separate. Since I never really had an issue with the original RNG pack, I figgured worse case scenario, I'd have more options. Lucky day, the very first one I opened was the one I wanted! The other 4 I'm very happy with too, so I'm glad of this middle ground. Even if I'd had to buy one selected after. As others have said, the 1200 gems for select is reasonable, otherwise nobody would bother with random. For those who complain about price of singles, you want the skin, right? Apparently you didn't like the premium ones that had been offered at 2000, but you do want one of these. A skin you like, for less than others. It's a win, if you ask me. There's no way that will make everyone happy. Unless they were all free. Just putting my 2 cents in here, as a positive "vote" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sablephoenix.1593 Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 Overton. Window. Research it. Then, compare it with how they set the "premium" price point on mount skins at an exorbitant 2000 gems apiece. Then, compare the mechanics and price points of the Istani mount license versus the Mount Adoption license. While you're doing that, I'll be sitting over here shaking my head at how effective this technique remains, even if people are made aware of the psychology behind said effectiveness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > Except you and Ohoni seem to miss the crucial facts in all this.. > 1 - Having a choice of what you want from the pack comes at a price.. no reason whatsoever that it has to, or that the price difference would need to be three times as much. Plenty of other games on the market have a "roll a loot box or buy the thing straight" option with much more reasonable terms. > 2 - Players are not forced to buy any of the skins it is a choice each of us has to make.. ANET have decided to offer an additional choice .. play the lucky dip or buy the prize of choice Nobody has even once suggested that players don't have the choice to not buy. That fact is entirely irrelevant to any actual human's position here. > 3 - ANET is a business not a charity, it has to turn a profit on everything it does or we don't get to have nice things and options aside of paying for an expansion pack of goodies. Nobody has disputed this either, it is our belief that they will make *more* money at a more reasonable price, or at the very worst they will still make money, just not as much. Even that latter scenario I view as highly unlikely. > 4 - actually ANET has given us something we didn't have before.. we have the option to only buy 1 skin that we want rather than playing the game of chance. Which is better than what they offered last time, but what they offered last time (and *still* haven't fixed) was utterly awful, so merely making a minor improvement on that is not something worthy of abject praise. Good job, you got a "D" rather than an "F" this time, but is a "B" or even a "C" *really* too much to expect? > 5 - Lowering prices might yield sales but it doesn't guarantee profit.. ever heard the saying busy fools. It doesn't guarantee profit, but neither does lower sales at higher prices. Nothing is ever guaranteed. > 6 - The quality of the skins is kinda like that old saying beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Thinking one skin is worth more than another is kind of subjective.. I like these new skins far more than those 2k skins they pushed out, in fact all the skin packs like branded, wintersday, spooky.. they are all superior in how they look and sound etc in comparison to those luxury priced ones.. but that's just my opinion, others more than likely think different.. and that's the crux of it. Half true, but also kind of nonsense. Again, line up the fifteen skins, ask a hundred people to put five each into a "high," "low," and "medium" price bucket, and the overwhelming majority of players would put the majority of them into the same buckets.Opinion is subjective, but there are certain constants. If there is a skin that gets put into the "cheap" bucket that's your favorite? Great! You got a good deal. If there's a skin that you hate but it got put into the "expensive" bucket? Great! You don't have to get that one and save on it. But ANet knows full well which ones go in which buckets, and that *most* players would agree. > As for the price points.. we do not know what they are only ANET knows where the break even is, how much it cost to develop the skins.. and no its not a case of reskin something so no cost.. everything has a cost.. just employing the dev costs and providing the floor space he/she works in, cost ANET. Yes, but we do know, from a *consumer* perspective, what the fair prices are for skins of these types, based on decades of experience with similar consumer products. It's their job to produce the items within those pricing expectations. > If they are way off on their costing model then players won't buy it so they more than likely used all that data from previous skin sales and remodelled their cost model for this latest foray.. if its still wrong then they will either ajust again next time, keep it the same or just scrap skins altogether because the risk/reward has become too small. They still have yet to fix the original mount skin loot box. They have shown a surprising inability to adapt so far, which leaves me a bit pessimistic about the future. > Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the prices for the skins is right or wrong.. but I am saying for me personally the price feels much more appealing than the 2k options and the quality of the skins to me is just as good if not better.... but I still bought 3 or 4 skins from the random pack, cos actually I liked the look of them all and no matter which skins I got they are all different, which is what it said on the label. And that's fine, that's your choice and nobody is saying you can't make it. Let others also make their own choices, including their choice to present customer feedback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarshallLaw.9260 Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 People just need to accept that ANet cannot possibly please everyone all at once. With the first batch of mount licences, some were happy with the price, some were not happy with the RNG, they asked for the option to pick the skin for more than the RNG cost but to _choose what they pay for_ . Then came the "deluxe mounts" for 2k gems and some players were very vocal how "this is too expensive" and "you're getting none of my cash, ANet". Now we are at a stage with a 15 mount package so technically the chances are somewhat better than the 30 mount pool from the previous version. To add to this we have the **option** of _how_ we get these - the gamble, or the direct purchase. Still people seem to be salty -"Oh ANet, I thought we would be getting CHEAP skins where I can get 50 for $2", "Oh, ANet, you're trying to rob us with this product, what a scam", "Oh ANet, this is a MOUNT SKIN - why is it so expensive?" Because it takes time and effort to make and the vendor has the right to pick a price for a product they've created. It's cheaper than before and easier to select. My advice is, if _you think_ it's too expensive - **don't buy it**. And for those who don't buy it - what's the point of posting "Oh I won't be buying this" ?- you're like vegans, just announcing they exist purely because there is nothing more interesting about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > Except you and Ohoni seem to miss the crucial facts in all this.. > > 1 - Having a choice of what you want from the pack comes at a price.. > > no reason whatsoever that it has to, or that the price difference would need to be three times as much. Plenty of other games on the market have a "roll a loot box or buy the thing straight" option with much more reasonable terms. > > > 2 - Players are not forced to buy any of the skins it is a choice each of us has to make.. ANET have decided to offer an additional choice .. play the lucky dip or buy the prize of choice > > Nobody has even once suggested that players don't have the choice to not buy. That fact is entirely irrelevant to any actual human's position here. > > > 3 - ANET is a business not a charity, it has to turn a profit on everything it does or we don't get to have nice things and options aside of paying for an expansion pack of goodies. > > Nobody has disputed this either, it is our belief that they will make *more* money at a more reasonable price, or at the very worst they will still make money, just not as much. Even that latter scenario I view as highly unlikely. > > > 4 - actually ANET has given us something we didn't have before.. we have the option to only buy 1 skin that we want rather than playing the game of chance. > > Which is better than what they offered last time, but what they offered last time (and *still* haven't fixed) was utterly awful, so merely making a minor improvement on that is not something worthy of abject praise. Good job, you got a "D" rather than an "F" this time, but is a "B" or even a "C" *really* too much to expect? > > > 5 - Lowering prices might yield sales but it doesn't guarantee profit.. ever heard the saying busy fools. > > It doesn't guarantee profit, but neither does lower sales at higher prices. Nothing is ever guaranteed. > > > 6 - The quality of the skins is kinda like that old saying beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Thinking one skin is worth more than another is kind of subjective.. I like these new skins far more than those 2k skins they pushed out, in fact all the skin packs like branded, wintersday, spooky.. they are all superior in how they look and sound etc in comparison to those luxury priced ones.. but that's just my opinion, others more than likely think different.. and that's the crux of it. > > Half true, but also kind of nonsense. Again, line up the fifteen skins, ask a hundred people to put five each into a "high," "low," and "medium" price bucket, and the overwhelming majority of players would put the majority of them into the same buckets.Opinion is subjective, but there are certain constants. If there is a skin that gets put into the "cheap" bucket that's your favorite? Great! You got a good deal. If there's a skin that you hate but it got put into the "expensive" bucket? Great! You don't have to get that one and save on it. But ANet knows full well which ones go in which buckets, and that *most* players would agree. > > > As for the price points.. we do not know what they are only ANET knows where the break even is, how much it cost to develop the skins.. and no its not a case of reskin something so no cost.. everything has a cost.. just employing the dev costs and providing the floor space he/she works in, cost ANET. > > Yes, but we do know, from a *consumer* perspective, what the fair prices are for skins of these types, based on decades of experience with similar consumer products. It's their job to produce the items within those pricing expectations. > > > If they are way off on their costing model then players won't buy it so they more than likely used all that data from previous skin sales and remodelled their cost model for this latest foray.. if its still wrong then they will either ajust again next time, keep it the same or just scrap skins altogether because the risk/reward has become too small. > > They still have yet to fix the original mount skin loot box. They have shown a surprising inability to adapt so far, which leaves me a bit pessimistic about the future. > > > Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the prices for the skins is right or wrong.. but I am saying for me personally the price feels much more appealing than the 2k options and the quality of the skins to me is just as good if not better.... but I still bought 3 or 4 skins from the random pack, cos actually I liked the look of them all and no matter which skins I got they are all different, which is what it said on the label. > > And that's fine, that's your choice and nobody is saying you can't make it. Let others also make their own choices, including their choice to present customer feedback. > > You talk an awful lot about what everyone else apparently thinks, wants, knows.. but you have zero evidence to back it up.. stop talking for the "OTHERS" and make this about what it really is.. YOU. The general consensus of this thread if it is in anyway reflective of facts is that players are generally happy with the new licence options. How the heck can they now go back and "FIX" previous mount prices - they would end up causing more displeasure than what they stand to gain.. your talking nonsense here.. you think they are going to refund everyone that bought skins at old prices just cos you say they have to fix it. They have put forward another option .. if YOU don't like it then that's your beef. Other games other products do what they do because they have likely worked out where their break points are, just like ANET would of.. unless of course your saying everything is the same foreva with everything... decades of experience really c'mon at least make your argument about actuals rather than hypotheticals.. face facts you have zero idea what a fiar price is .. the demand of this new set will determine that not you.. until you can supply us actual evidence that you somehow know the fair price.. its all heresay and conjecture. ANET put forward a range of skins with different flavours so for sure are going to be more popular than others.. and guess what you now have the option to pick that for yourself.. that comes with a price. ANET from a business perspective I am sure would love you to either buy all skins via random box or all skins from choice box.. both are unlikely to happen for a varying list of reasons so they have to make their forecasts by a combination of higher price one offs and a larger amount of smaller cos random purchases... bottom line they know their costs and they know what their forecasts show.. now the bean counters have to be satisfied. Nothing can guarantee a return or profit its a game of chance for ANET as much as it is for us.. that's why they play the game at both ends of the spectrum. If they make the higher end too close to the bottom why would players buy the bottom.. cos as we have established, once players get what they want that's likely all they will buy and that isn't good when trying to balance your profit and loss.. so there needs to be some level of disparity between the two to suit the one timers, the collectors and those that may only want one or two skins but cant afford to buy it outright but can drip feed over time until they get it. As I said 2 pages back.. ANET will never make us all happy, but when unless you can provide evidence of "all the others" its nothing more than.. your opinion, as I have mine and ANET has theirs... time will tell if this has been a success or more work is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majirah.5089 Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > And that's fine, that's your choice and nobody is saying you can't make it. Let others also make their own choices, including their choice to present customer feedback. > You are free to leave your feedback. Those who disagree are also leaving their feedback. I want Anet to know that I have zero problem with their current model for mount skins and that I disagree with those that think everything should be dirt cheap. I also had zero problem with their earlier mount models. They are giving more and more options and each one is appreciated. In fact, I would urge Anet to not give in and decrease the price further unless they know for sure it would bring in a higher profit. If they actually forecasted that they can earn a higher profit with cheaper mounts, then I would be 100% for it. Not because I want things cheap, but because I want Anet to make money to keep this game running and developing. I want them to do what makes the highest profit as that will fund further development. Only Anet has the data to forecast sales at various price points with any degree comfort. And only they know what costs they hope to cover and future projects they hope to fund with these items. I bet if any of the Anet financial managers or accountants read some of this they would laugh at some of the comments people have made with their omniscience concerning market forecasts without any relevant data. So my feedback to Anet: thank you for the options. I will definitely be buying the primal jackal mount at the beginning of next month as I can use my hobby budget for it. I will be using the select option because that is the only one I’m really interested in, but would have done the gamble if it the select option wasn’t available. I have also bought the Halloween mount pack and 10 of the original mount licenses. I have not been displeased with any of these nor do I think they were unfair. I will continue to support this game. Keep up the good work and don’t cave to the entitled lot that think anything that isn’t free is overpriced or unfair or some heinous scheme from a greedy evil corporation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BastetBae.1069 Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 Me dont understand why so many ppls complain, yes u can say wht you want about Anet decision. But,.. We talking about Skins guys. W T F No u dont need it to play gw2 , so Keep your money who cares ._. ! Me love RNG box ^^ its exciting. I dont care if i lose ^^ and 400 For a mount skin is Ok. 1200 for the skin you want is Ok too its a good alternativ for ppl who dont want to have rng thing , but i will not buy at this price i Prefer RNG way by far ! (just bcause i love gambling ect ... funny :) ) If you want to know my experience with : During the First Boxes of mounts : I just want 1 of each sort of mounts. I buy like 8 licences and never got a Skimmer. But ok not a problem ^^ its the game :Q, and i got some nice skins for other mounts ! (Flame raptor, nebulous griffin and jaqqal...) And for these 2nd Rng boxes of mounts, i was like... Wow, this primeval Jaqqal is awesome i want it ._. (And a skimmer if its possible rng lord pls) 1) Celestial griffin 2)Striped lines raptor 3)"glacial" raptor and... 4) PRIMEVAL JAQQAL Hihihi so i'm very happy ^^ And about the non-existant skimmer with 12 Licences buyed ... Meh , okay ! Maybe an other time ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyFallsInThunder.8257 Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 Prices are way too high still. In the meantime, there are still 0 mount skins to be earned in the game. And no, the basic skins don't count. Gliders cost 4-500 gems per, except the ones from bundles but those came with extra items. Why do mount skins have to cost 2000 or 1200 gems is beyond me. Well, it's actually obvious why but you know what I mean. This game is turning more and more into a f2p game and it's a pity. To all those who defend this lower price and say it's a good solution: it's not a solution. ANet has caused the problem and is now selling the "solution". And people are buying it. Unbelievable. Also, this is a good read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndigoSundown.5419 Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 > @"sablephoenix.1593" said: > Overton. Window. > > Research it. > > Then, compare it with how they set the "premium" price point on mount skins at an exorbitant 2000 gems apiece. > > Then, compare the mechanics and price points of the Istani mount license versus the Mount Adoption license. > > While you're doing that, I'll be sitting over here shaking my head at how effective this technique remains, even if people are made aware of the psychology behind said effectiveness. Overton Window? Let's leave that in the realm of politics. Speaking in business terms, it's enough to say that the 2000 gem mounts provide an Anchoring Effect. The rest, in terms of individual mount cost, is looking for What the Market Will Bear or Finding the Perfect Price Point. I'm not up in arms about that as every business does it. I would be unhappy with continued exploitation of Gambler's Fallacy and Sunk Cost Fallacy, but I don't see this sales initiative to be doing that. Someone wants all 15 of them? They can buy three 5 packs at a discount over both the individual price and the random license price. Someone wants the enjoyment of gambling? They can do as much or as little of that as they want. Someone wants one or two skins? They can buy them. The only complaint I can see is the individual price point. I think 1200 is too much for a single Mount Outfit. I won't buy them as a result. There, I've voted with my wallet, and told ANet why. All the brouhaha over the pricing of mount skins has resulted in one action by ANet I have not seen from other businesses. MO'B told us that selling lower-ticket items is no longer working well enough on its own to fund development. He told us that selling larger-ticket items does. When looked at in that light, this License Pack _is_ taking customer feedback into account -- or don't you remember people saying they'd buy individual skins at 1200 gems? I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 > @"sablephoenix.1593" said: > Overton. Window. > > Research it. > > Then, compare it with how they set the "premium" price point on mount skins at an exorbitant 2000 gems apiece. > > Then, compare the mechanics and price points of the Istani mount license versus the Mount Adoption license. > > While you're doing that, I'll be sitting over here shaking my head at how effective this technique remains, even if people are made aware of the psychology behind said effectiveness. Congratulations, you discovered a new concept. I already knew what the Overton Window concept is. It isn't automatically describing something bad just because you can apply it to a scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > @"sablephoenix.1593" said: > > Overton. Window. > > > > Research it. > > > > Then, compare it with how they set the "premium" price point on mount skins at an exorbitant 2000 gems apiece. > > > > Then, compare the mechanics and price points of the Istani mount license versus the Mount Adoption license. > > > > While you're doing that, I'll be sitting over here shaking my head at how effective this technique remains, even if people are made aware of the psychology behind said effectiveness. > > Congratulations, you discovered a new concept. > > I already knew what the Overton Window concert is. It isn't automatically describing something bad just because you can apply it to a scenario. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 > @"MarshallLaw.9260" said: >With the first batch of mount licences, some were happy with the price, some were not happy with the RNG, they asked for the option to pick the skin for more than the RNG cost but to choose what they pay for . >Then came the "deluxe mounts" for 2k gems and some players were very vocal how "this is too expensive" and "you're getting none of my cash, ANet". You describe this as if B were a *reaction* to A. No. The Istan pack may be a reaction to the original mount license, but the 2K gem mounts were ALWAYS baked into the system, They were 2K mounts *months* before the Mount License pack came out. They never would have been available on any other terms, so it's not helpful to try and make it seem like they were in some way a *response* to complaints about the loot box. >Still people seem to be salty -"Oh ANet, I thought we would be getting CHEAP skins where I can get 50 for $2", "Oh, ANet, you're trying to rob us with this product, what a scam", "Oh ANet, this is a MOUNT SKIN - why is it so expensive?" I've never seen anyone suggesting 50 skins for $2. The lowest ask I've seen is that *some* of the skins be available for less than $5 individually, but most seem to agree that *most* of the skins should be in the $5-10 range, which I don't believe is at all unusual for skin pricing. >My advice is, if you think it's too expensive - don't buy it. And for those who don't buy it - what's the point of posting "Oh I won't be buying this" ?- you're like vegans, just announcing they exist purely because there is nothing more interesting about them. I don't like vegans telling other people how they should eat, but I don't for a second begrudge vegans telling a restaurant that they would prefer to have vegan *options* on the menu. That's valuable consumer feedback and should be encouraged, not shouted down. > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: >How the heck can they now go back and "FIX" previous mount prices - they would end up causing more displeasure than what they stand to gain.. your talking nonsense here.. you think they are going to refund everyone that bought skins at old prices just cos you say they have to fix it. They have sales all the time. The game originally launched for $60, and now you can get all of that content for free. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever that they can't go back and re-evaluate the original mount license package and offer alternatives, and YES, alternatives that are a better deal than the original. People who bought the original package have no right to complain, they got 5-6 months of exclusive access to those skins, which is plenty. >They have put forward another option .. if YOU don't like it then that's your beef. Yes, that is the point I have been making. >ANET from a business perspective I am sure would love you to either buy all skins via random box or all skins from choice box.. both are unlikely to happen for a varying list of reasons so they have to make their forecasts by a combination of higher price one offs and a larger amount of smaller cos random purchases... bottom line they know their costs and they know what their forecasts show.. now the bean counters have to be satisfied. Their economic decisions should not be based on players buying things that they do not want. If they design the system to encourage players to buy skins that they do not actually want or use (because doing so is the most efficient way to get the skins that they *do* want) then that is a corrupt system. All they should *want* is for every player to buy the skins he does want and to NEVER buy the skins he does not want. Their pricing and production decisions should be based on that practice. A player buying two skins he does not want in the process of getting three skins that he did want should never be viewed as a "mission accomplished" moment. That is a failure, pure and simple. >Nothing can guarantee a return or profit its a game of chance for ANET as much as it is for us.. that's why they play the game at both ends of the spectrum. If they make the higher end too close to the bottom why would players buy the bottom.. cos as we have established, once players get what they want that's likely all they will buy and that isn't good when trying to balance your profit and loss.. so there needs to be some level of disparity between the two to suit the one timers, the collectors and those that may only want one or two skins but cant afford to buy it outright but can drip feed over time until they get it. Again, if you have a variety of pricing, with the "good" ones being more expensive than the "bad" ones, and then you set the loot box price at or even above the price of the "bad" ones, then players might still roll the loot box for the chance of potentially saving money by getting one of the "good" ones for cheaper. But again, the goal should not be to get people to roll the loot box, the goal should be to get the players the skins that they want at a price they are happy with. If nobody rolls the loot box, but they have the skins they want anyway, that's fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 @"Ohoni.6057" 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. It is a player driven market, the demand is set by us, we get to decide what we like and dont like... it's really that simple.. you have kind of answered your own argument right there. Anyhow it's simple by or don't buy.. and be done with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now