Ohoni.6057 Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: >That is what they are doing.. the only difference is they are allowing the players to determine which is the better skin to them and charge them more for the one off choice.. the rest fall under the second price of, not so sought after hence lower gem/random choice. But that's the problem, let's say that I really want a couple of skins, but I also sort of want a few others. I don't want to ever pay 1200 for those others, I don't want them that much, but at the same time, I *would* pay money for them, just not that much. But then if I went the RNG route, then I might end up with one of the many skins that I don't want at all, so that would be a complete waste of my money. This is why I think they should just charge fairly for the skins. Let players buy the expensive ones that they want at expensive prices, and the cheap ones they want at cheap prices. >Anyhow it's simple by or don't buy.. and be done with it. And that's what I'm doing, but I'm *also* advocating for something better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowzerk.4715 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Majirah.5089" said: > > @"Hyper Cutter.9376" said: > > Standalone Glider skins cost 400-500 gems for a guaranteed glider of your choice (and even the glider/backpack bundles only cost 700 gems), there is _literally_ no reason mount skins should work any differently. > > This is wrong. If mount skins are in higher demand or cost more to produce, then Anet absolutely should charge more for them. Should a ball cap cost the same as a cowboy hat because they both go on your head? No. They are different products with different costs and demand. Therefore they should be priced different. > > Mount skins are not glider skins and should not be expected to be priced the same. key work: choice anet [need money](https://mmos.com/news/ncsoft-reports-earnings-guild-wars-2-revenue-hits-time-lows-mobile-games-soar "need money"), but they dont know how to make money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > >That is what they are doing.. the only difference is they are allowing the players to determine which is the better skin to them and charge them more for the one off choice.. the rest fall under the second price of, not so sought after hence lower gem/random choice. > > But that's the problem, let's say that I really want a couple of skins, but I also sort of want a few others. I don't want to ever pay 1200 for those others, I don't want them that much, but at the same time, I *would* pay money for them, just not that much. But then if I went the RNG route, then I might end up with one of the many skins that I don't want at all, so that would be a complete waste of my money. This is why I think they should just charge fairly for the skins. Let players buy the expensive ones that they want at expensive prices, and the cheap ones they want at cheap prices. > > >Anyhow it's simple by or don't buy.. and be done with it. > > And that's what I'm doing, but I'm *also* advocating for something better. > I think it's a bit more delicate than that though. In your example, you say you would pay money for them but just not that much. There are options and outcomes here to consider besides just "charge fairly for the skins". For one, you don't say you would *never* pay that much for the skin so there is that higher possibility that you (in the example) would change your mind. The factor of time can be a large factor too when deciding fair prices. Back when parents taught their kids to save money for things they want, budgeting for some superfluous item is actually a good thing, even if the superfluous item is useless. So long as it's in range of a reasonable budget, you (in the example) will feel better in the long run about waiting, saving and then finally getting something that you (in the example) desire than just getting things quick and cheap. But if the only solution sought is lowering the price, they lose out on other possible bargaining options like limited time sales, bundles and just straight cash from frugal bugeteers while harboring a harmful completionist mentality for the common casual gamer. I'm also in the camp of "don't buy", but for a different reason. Not because I don't like the price, but because I feel skins are just empty content and I will only buy so much of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Leo G.4501" said: > For one, you don't say you would never pay that much for the skin so there is that higher possibility that you (in the example) would change your mind. Possibly, though if I did change my mind, I likely wouldn't be happy about it, which would make me feel even more down about the game, and less likely to spend in future. I spend for justice, I spend money on things when I feel I'm being offered a fair deal, not when I feel I'm being strongarmed. I would rather spend more money on something I thought was fairly priced, than spend less on something that I feel was exploitative. >The factor of time can be a large factor too when deciding fair prices. Back when parents taught their kids to save money for things they want, budgeting for some superfluous item is actually a good thing, even if the superfluous item is useless. So long as it's in range of a reasonable budget, you (in the example) will feel better in the long run about waiting, saving and then finally getting something that you (in the example) desire than just getting things quick and cheap. Sure, but that's completely irrelevant to the situation at hand, because we aren't talking about "saving up for something worthwhile" here. I could afford to buy the skins I want. I could afford to buy the skins I don't want. I don't care that I can afford these things, I don't want to spend money on what I consider to be a bad deal, regardless of how little it would harm me to do so. I would rather give ANet $100 for nothing than to give them $10 for a skin that I don't feel should cost more than $5. Hell, for the good of the game, I'll put my money where my mouth is on this one, right here, right now: IF ANet offers a more fair deal on these skins within the next few weeks, one in which you can buy any of the 45 "loot box" skins you want at a reasonable price, the higher value ones set at 1200, the moderate ones at 800-600, the "palette swap" ones at 200-400, so that the *average* price balances out to being the cost of buying out the loot boxes via RNG, then I will buy up $100 in gems with cash, convert them to gold, buy some junk off the TP, and then delete that junk, putting the money *entirely* to waste (beyond putting it into ANet's coffers). If I fail to do this in a timely manner, they can delete my account of five years. That's *on top of* how I'll probably end up buying a bunch of those skins. That's the only gamble I care to make on this situation. >But if the only solution sought is lowering the price, they lose out on other possible bargaining options like limited time sales, bundles and just straight cash from frugal bugeteers while harboring a harmful completionist mentality for the common casual gamer. The prices I'm asking for should not be sale prices. They should be normal prices. If they want to offer sales in future, it should be at even *lower* prices than those I've proposed. If at some point they decide to offer a "special sale price" of 50% off, that's just insult to injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 The cool thing (to me at least) is that a player can acquire every last one of the skins without spending a dime. They can be earned by spending time in the game. Of course a player can speed up the process by spending money, either full price or to supplement in game efforts. Don't want to buy the 1200 gems with real money? Earn some gold and only buy 800 gems. Or don't spend any real money at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Ashen.2907" said: > The cool thing (to me at least) is that a player can acquire every last one of the skins without spending a dime. They can be earned by spending time in the game. Of course a player can speed up the process by spending money, either full price or to supplement in game efforts. Don't want to buy the 1200 gems with real money? Earn some gold and only buy 800 gems. Or don't spend any real money at all. I'd like to add to this, that even though I am not happy with individual non-rng cost of these skins, I think smaller (15) skin pack feels much more accessible than original mount adoption license set. I myself feel more encouraged to use some gems to buy them than I was for the first time, where most of the skins were basically fillers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > Sure, but that's completely irrelevant to the situation at hand, because we aren't talking about "saving up for something worthwhile" here. I could afford to buy the skins I want. I could afford to buy the skins I don't want. I don't care that I can afford these things, I don't want to spend money on what I consider to be a bad deal, regardless of how little it would harm me to do so. I would rather give ANet $100 for nothing than to give them $10 for a skin that I don't feel should cost more than $5. Hell, for the good of the game, I'll put my money where my mouth is on this one, right here, right now: > I had a feeling you would respond that way. I think the perspective of Anet and their pricing team is that they build their pricing model not only by the individual worth of each item, but rather a budget of currency you're willing to give. If we're looking at the big picture, how many individual items do you think the average player buys? I think this number likely changes over time as the player collects more items but the newer player has a price hurdle to get past before they start raking in extra gold to flip for gems, birthday packs for specific desired dyes, building up their home instance and bank and material storage....eventually you're going to be getting fewer items and only worry about certain skins. Then is it not worthwhile to build a budget for desired items or spend by virtue and merit? I wonder how individuals in this game actually determine item worth, on an individual basis or on a budget basis? For me, I don't worry about skins too much but when I see something I like, I don't feel remorse for buying that 2k gem mount or whatever because I hadn't spent a dime for the past 2 or 3 months. If I had spent some cash on the game that month, that is put into consideration. It's not about actually being able to afford it but what I'm willing to budget for the game. I feel, this partially regulates spending habits while also sending a message that, if they release lots of high budget items at the same time, they aren't going to get even more money out of me. Regarding your ultimatum, my wallet might counter it. Unless they start expanding the masteries, I don't see a point in buying more skins at all. I'd sooner buy story content or character options than I would skins. Give me more races and story and I can see a reason to buy the skins that best fit those characters regardless of the skin's price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 I don't know, I bought a whole lot of stuff fairly early in the game, utilities like bank space, character slots, shared inventory, etc. Once I felt comfortable with the amount of each that I had, my spending slowed. I've bought several gliders skins, several armor/weapon skins (I'll *never* buy Outfits though), I did even buy the one lion/griffon skin, which I feel was a bit overpriced, but at least cool enough to justify it. I actually would have bought that garden plot, but I was still mad at them about the initial 40-skin loot box (which they **still** haven't fixed). If I did budget my money, if I wanted to spend, say, no more than 400 gems per month, meaning that it would cost "one month" per loot box gamble, or "three months" to pick an individual skin, that wouldn't make me *more* happy about the current arrangement, or "more excited" about saving up to get a skin, it would make me more frustrated, and feel like the tradeoff would *never* be worthwhile to me. I mean, I sort of have this relationship going on in a mobile game I play, in which they give out a certain number of "gems" per week, and the only thing to spend them on is RNG rolls. I save them up, and spend them when I feel it's worthwhile to do so, but I would never purchase any of them for money so long as the odds are so skewed against me. >I feel, this partially regulates spending habits while also sending a message that, if they release lots of high budget items at the same time, they aren't going to get even more money out of me. Whereas to me, I wouldn't mind if they did release a ton of stuff at once, I might not buy it all at once, I might wait to pick up some of it (and for those and other reasons I doubt it's in their best interests to dump items on the market like that), but no matter how often or how rare something pops up that I might want, I evaluate it individually as either being a fair deal, or an unfair one. >Regarding your ultimatum, my wallet might counter it. Unless they start expanding the masteries, I don't see a point in buying more skins at all. I'd sooner buy story content or character options than I would skins. Give me more races and story and I can see a reason to buy the skins that best fit those characters regardless of the skin's price. Perhaps, but that's a separate argument entirely. It's not about trying to sell skins to people who don't even care about them, it's about selling skins to people who definitely want to buy them, but definitely *not* under the current market positioning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"Leo G.4501" said: > > For one, you don't say you would never pay that much for the skin so there is that higher possibility that you (in the example) would change your mind. > > Possibly, though if I did change my mind, I likely wouldn't be happy about it, which would make me feel even more down about the game, and less likely to spend in future. I spend for justice, I spend money on things when I feel I'm being offered a fair deal, not when I feel I'm being strongarmed. I would rather spend more money on something I thought was fairly priced, than spend less on something that I feel was exploitative. > > >The factor of time can be a large factor too when deciding fair prices. Back when parents taught their kids to save money for things they want, budgeting for some superfluous item is actually a good thing, even if the superfluous item is useless. So long as it's in range of a reasonable budget, you (in the example) will feel better in the long run about waiting, saving and then finally getting something that you (in the example) desire than just getting things quick and cheap. > > Sure, but that's completely irrelevant to the situation at hand, because we aren't talking about "saving up for something worthwhile" here. I could afford to buy the skins I want. I could afford to buy the skins I don't want. I don't care that I can afford these things, I don't want to spend money on what I consider to be a bad deal, regardless of how little it would harm me to do so. I would rather give ANet $100 for nothing than to give them $10 for a skin that I don't feel should cost more than $5. Hell, for the good of the game, I'll put my money where my mouth is on this one, right here, right now: > > IF ANet offers a more fair deal on these skins within the next few weeks, one in which you can buy any of the 45 "loot box" skins you want at a reasonable price, the higher value ones set at 1200, the moderate ones at 800-600, the "palette swap" ones at 200-400, so that the *average* price balances out to being the cost of buying out the loot boxes via RNG, then I will buy up $100 in gems with cash, convert them to gold, buy some junk off the TP, and then delete that junk, putting the money *entirely* to waste (beyond putting it into ANet's coffers). If I fail to do this in a timely manner, they can delete my account of five years. That's *on top of* how I'll probably end up buying a bunch of those skins. That's the only gamble I care to make on this situation. > > >But if the only solution sought is lowering the price, they lose out on other possible bargaining options like limited time sales, bundles and just straight cash from frugal bugeteers while harboring a harmful completionist mentality for the common casual gamer. > > The prices I'm asking for should not be sale prices. They should be normal prices. If they want to offer sales in future, it should be at even *lower* prices than those I've proposed. If at some point they decide to offer a "special sale price" of 50% off, that's just insult to injury. > > Seriously it doesn't matter what discussion is placed around this and no matter how many counters to your "mememe" mentality around your issues, nothing is going to make you a happy bunny. So look we get it, you want cheap without even considering what cheap is or what expensive is.. you have neither the sales data or the profit/loss data in which to form your argument sensibly. It's just your inability to get past your emotive outburst on this and that is clouding your ability to listen to reason. No one is saying you must buy, so don't. If you think they are beyond the price your willing to pay then simply don't buy If you think the quality does not hold up against the price, then don't buy don't hold up in quality. Then again if your willing to just waste $100 against a single 1200 gem purchase or a few random stabs.. I think there is a real conflict in your argument and actually it buys into what Leo was actually saying if you read his post again. This is my last stab at this.. The quality of each skin is purely subjective and only as an individual can we decide if we like it or not. The price is set by ANET.. they have costs to cover and profit to make to fund potential ongoing developments, staffing, utilities etc etc.. it is not some random price plucked out of the air by a bean counter one sunny afternoon whilst drinking a pimms by the pond... try developing something.. anything and then sell it on at break even or a loss and then come back and tell us all about the plethora of hungry bargain hunters you attracted and how much you have made out of it. Fact is there has to be a point which the prices become unattractive for ANET and a price they are unattractive for the players.. so ANET try to find a happy medium.. they have changed things up this time round and it might not be quite right yet, but I would hazard a guess that more players are happier this time round than they were previous.. and 2k gems for a "subjectively higher quality" skin I guess wasn't well received.. this 1200gem option I think will be. So final thought.. I like the skins and I think they are of a decent quality, I think the pricing and options are fair to me. You question the quality of some/all skins and you think the price is a rip off Which one is right..... we both are.. because we have individual opinions, likes and dislikes and that is ok. But when the dust settles and the beans are counted.. only ANET can truly say if they were right... time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > The quality of each skin is purely subjective and only the as an individual can we decide if we like it or not. Not at all. Skin quality can be measured by objective values. Color pattern "skins" are significantly less valuable than skins offering auras, model changes, new sound effects etc. Pricing simple color pattern skin the same as "premium" quality skin is definitely questionable practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > So look we get it, you want cheap without even considering what cheap is or what expensive is.. . . . I don't think you "get it" at all. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > The quality of each skin is purely subjective and only the as an individual can we decide if we like it or not. > > Not at all. Skin quality can be measured by objective values. Color pattern "skins" are significantly less valuable than skins offering auras, model changes, new sound effects etc. Pricing simple color pattern skin the same as "premium" quality skin is definitely questionable practice. And who decides if it is quality.. me and you. Regardless of what extra work goes into the skin development.. only we as an individual can decide if hits all the right notes and gives us that warm fuzzy feeling. Like I said those "premium" 2k skins I think were pretty awful and I much prefer say a primeval jackal cos I think the quality is just that much better. The avian abomination I would never shell out a dime for it.. if the stardrift was priced at 2k gems I would likely still buy it cos to me its the best quality skimmer they have put up ... its just purely subjective and when we understand that fact it comes down to whether you think pixels fit the price.. I do, others may not and that's ok we are not all the same I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > The quality of each skin is purely subjective and only the as an individual can we decide if we like it or not. > > > > Not at all. Skin quality can be measured by objective values. Color pattern "skins" are significantly less valuable than skins offering auras, model changes, new sound effects etc. Pricing simple color pattern skin the same as "premium" quality skin is definitely questionable practice. > > And who decides if it is quality.. me and you. You can decide whether you like it or not. I presented you objective way of measuring skins different quality levels. Are you going to argue that skin giving nothing but color pattern has the same value as the skin changing the model and adding aura? For example: [This skin](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Coastal_Spiketail) is a color pattern. While [this one](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Flamelander) gives additional aura. The second one took more work to be done therefore is worth more and should be priced differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: >And who decides if it is quality.. me and you. Regardless of what extra work goes into the skin development.. only we as an individual can decide if hits all the right notes and gives us that warm fuzzy feeling. Yes, but ANet doesn't deserve more money just because more work goes into something. I say that with the brutal cynicism of a professional artist. Their job is to produce the products that the consumers want, and to budget them accordingly. If a given skin takes more work to make, but is not valued as highly by the customers, then that's just an indication that they shouldn't have spent so much time on it in the first place. Like I've said, you can argue "subjective" all you like, but the simple fact is that humanity gives relative worth to "subjective" things every single day. It's not some great unfathomable mystery. The value of an item is the average value that everyone would place on it. You might personally value a certain item more or less than the avergae, but the average is what matters. If you happen to love an item that the community values as "low value," then that's great for you, because it means you'll be able to get it at a bargain price. If you happen to hate an item that the community values as "high value," then that's great too, you don't have to spend money on it. Just because individual tastes vary does not in any way mean that the only option is to throw up one's hands and price everything equally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > The quality of each skin is purely subjective and only the as an individual can we decide if we like it or not. > > > > > > Not at all. Skin quality can be measured by objective values. Color pattern "skins" are significantly less valuable than skins offering auras, model changes, new sound effects etc. Pricing simple color pattern skin the same as "premium" quality skin is definitely questionable practice. > > > > And who decides if it is quality.. me and you. > > You can decide whether you like it or not. I presented you objective way of measuring skins different quality levels. Are you going to argue that skin giving nothing but color pattern has the same value as the skin changing the model and adding aura? > > For example: > [This skin](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Coastal_Spiketail) is a color pattern. While [this one](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Flamelander) gives additional aura. The second one took more work to be done therefore is worth more and should be priced differently. Your looking it at from the wrong side. When I design something it is costed appropriately based on factors relevant to my the business.. through that I know my break point.. then you take a look at historical demands and then you consider future endeavours.. mix all that into the soup bowl and a price is born based on what the business deems it to be worth and what they look to make from it. Now look from the other side.. while ANET's idea of the quality of that skin is high because of the time, expertise, technical drift it offers to me .. I on the other hand think it looks awful, sounds weird or annoying and so I do not deem it quality so I don't buy it. But then you say .. ooh awesome, like that it has go fast stripes and sound like a roadrunner.. I want it - kerchinnggg That is just how subjective the quality of that product is.. no matter how fine tuned ANET made it.. it met with different opinions on its quality. Developer and consumer are two different animals and that is the risk ANET take. At the end of the day, the demand for the product will steer whether the quality and price have met with ANET's forecast...but like I said there is no right or wrong in this its down to an individual like or not buy or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > >And who decides if it is quality.. me and you. Regardless of what extra work goes into the skin development.. only we as an individual can decide if hits all the right notes and gives us that warm fuzzy feeling. > > Yes, but ANet doesn't deserve more money just because more work goes into something. I say that with the brutal cynicism of a professional artist. Their job is to produce the products that the consumers want, and to budget them accordingly. If a given skin takes more work to make, but is not valued as highly by the customers, then that's just an indication that they shouldn't have spent so much time on it in the first place. > > Like I've said, you can argue "subjective" all you like, but the simple fact is that humanity gives relative worth to "subjective" things every single day. It's not some great unfathomable mystery. The value of an item is the average value that everyone would place on it. You might personally value a certain item more or less than the avergae, but the average is what matters. > > If you happen to love an item that the community values as "low value," then that's great for you, because it means you'll be able to get it at a bargain price. > > If you happen to hate an item that the community values as "high value," then that's great too, you don't have to spend money on it. > > Just because individual tastes vary does not in any way mean that the only option is to throw up one's hands and price everything equally. Errm I think you actually agreed with me there.thanks :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > >And who decides if it is quality.. me and you. Regardless of what extra work goes into the skin development.. only we as an individual can decide if hits all the right notes and gives us that warm fuzzy feeling. > > > > Yes, but ANet doesn't deserve more money just because more work goes into something. I say that with the brutal cynicism of a professional artist. Their job is to produce the products that the consumers want, and to budget them accordingly. If a given skin takes more work to make, but is not valued as highly by the customers, then that's just an indication that they shouldn't have spent so much time on it in the first place. > > > > Like I've said, you can argue "subjective" all you like, but the simple fact is that humanity gives relative worth to "subjective" things every single day. It's not some great unfathomable mystery. The value of an item is the average value that everyone would place on it. You might personally value a certain item more or less than the avergae, but the average is what matters. > > > > If you happen to love an item that the community values as "low value," then that's great for you, because it means you'll be able to get it at a bargain price. > > > > If you happen to hate an item that the community values as "high value," then that's great too, you don't have to spend money on it. > > > > Just because individual tastes vary does not in any way mean that the only option is to throw up one's hands and price everything equally. > > Errm I think you actually agreed with me there.thanks :) Good, so all they need to do is cost the skins appropriately, something around 1200 for the higher value skins in the set, 600-800 for the mid-value ones, 300-400 for the lower value ones, and it'll all work fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > The quality of each skin is purely subjective and only the as an individual can we decide if we like it or not. > > > > > > > > Not at all. Skin quality can be measured by objective values. Color pattern "skins" are significantly less valuable than skins offering auras, model changes, new sound effects etc. Pricing simple color pattern skin the same as "premium" quality skin is definitely questionable practice. > > > > > > And who decides if it is quality.. me and you. > > > > You can decide whether you like it or not. I presented you objective way of measuring skins different quality levels. Are you going to argue that skin giving nothing but color pattern has the same value as the skin changing the model and adding aura? > > > > For example: > > [This skin](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Coastal_Spiketail) is a color pattern. While [this one](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Flamelander) gives additional aura. The second one took more work to be done therefore is worth more and should be priced differently. > > Your looking it at from the wrong side. > When I design something it is costed appropriately based on factors relevant to my the business.. through that I know my break point.. then you take a look at historical demands and then you consider future endeavours.. mix all that into the soup bowl and a price is born based on what the business deems it to be worth and what they look to make from it. > Now look from the other side.. while ANET's idea of the quality of that skin is high because of the time, expertise, technical drift it offers to me .. I on the other hand think it looks awful, sounds weird or annoying and so I do not deem it quality so I don't buy it. > But then you say .. ooh awesome, like that it has go fast stripes and sound like a roadrunner.. I want it - kerchinnggg > That is just how subjective the quality of that product is.. no matter how fine tuned ANET made it.. it met with different opinions on its quality. > Developer and consumer are two different animals and that is the risk ANET take. > At the end of the day, the demand for the product will steer whether the quality and price have met with ANET's forecast...but like I said there is no right or wrong in this its down to an individual like or not buy or not. You are again not understanding the difference between personal taste and objective value aspects. It's just like legendary weapons or BLC sets. They cost more (and are monetized) because they present more value - animations, auras, effects. Meanwhile mounts of different tier of quality cost the same (except 2k gems "legendary" skins). Anyway, I'm done discussing this subject with you. If you don't accept my explanation and objective aspects of skin quality and pricing differences I can't help you any further. Good luck with your adventures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > The quality of each skin is purely subjective and only the as an individual can we decide if we like it or not. > > > > > > > > > > Not at all. Skin quality can be measured by objective values. Color pattern "skins" are significantly less valuable than skins offering auras, model changes, new sound effects etc. Pricing simple color pattern skin the same as "premium" quality skin is definitely questionable practice. > > > > > > > > And who decides if it is quality.. me and you. > > > > > > You can decide whether you like it or not. I presented you objective way of measuring skins different quality levels. Are you going to argue that skin giving nothing but color pattern has the same value as the skin changing the model and adding aura? > > > > > > For example: > > > [This skin](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Coastal_Spiketail) is a color pattern. While [this one](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Flamelander) gives additional aura. The second one took more work to be done therefore is worth more and should be priced differently. > > > > Your looking it at from the wrong side. > > When I design something it is costed appropriately based on factors relevant to my the business.. through that I know my break point.. then you take a look at historical demands and then you consider future endeavours.. mix all that into the soup bowl and a price is born based on what the business deems it to be worth and what they look to make from it. > > Now look from the other side.. while ANET's idea of the quality of that skin is high because of the time, expertise, technical drift it offers to me .. I on the other hand think it looks awful, sounds weird or annoying and so I do not deem it quality so I don't buy it. > > But then you say .. ooh awesome, like that it has go fast stripes and sound like a roadrunner.. I want it - kerchinnggg > > That is just how subjective the quality of that product is.. no matter how fine tuned ANET made it.. it met with different opinions on its quality. > > Developer and consumer are two different animals and that is the risk ANET take. > > At the end of the day, the demand for the product will steer whether the quality and price have met with ANET's forecast...but like I said there is no right or wrong in this its down to an individual like or not buy or not. > > You are again not understanding the difference between personal taste and objective value aspects. It's just like legendary weapons or BLC sets. They cost more (and are monetized) because they present more value - animations, auras, effects. Meanwhile mounts of different tier of quality cost the same (except 2k gems "legendary" skins). > > Anyway, I'm done with you about this subject. If you don't accept my explanation and objective aspects of skin quality and pricing differences I can't help you any further. Good luck with your adventures. Of course I understand objective aspects.. 19+ yrs running my own projects and design business I think shows I know how to design and cost quality products into industries which demand it.... what your failing to acknowledge is this simple fact that no matter how objectively we put something out there, it is the subjective nature of personal taste that drives demand for it.. you like a red car with go fast stripes and dark alloys I like the blue one with no stripes and plastic trims.. same car just with a swish down the side and some shiny wheels, which elevates its cost a little more to make it objectively more appealing.. but when it goes out to the consumer domain things don't pan out the way it should of done objectively.. is it that the consumer thought the car looked bad, drove poorly or was the price not too attractive.. or was it both. Bottom line you can be as objective as you like and put as much technical drift into a product but if the consumer fails to subjectively agree the product will fail to yield the return it was objectively forecasted to and that is the risk/reward game that ANET play everytime they put something out there. In fact its a good reason to place cheaper options on the same board because it generates consumer opinion from both ends and helps to reduce the risk, if they have their pricing policies nailed down correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > you like a red car with go fast stripes and dark alloys I like the blue one with no stripes and plastic trims.. Yes, but that's not relevant here. Let's keep this simple, compare two Istani skins. A. The Striped Jarin Raptor skin, which is a basic repaint of the default model, and B. The Exalted Sky Sentry Griffon, which is a remodel with a flashy texture and on a highly valued mount. Now you, personally, might say "well I like the Jarin better, I would pay more for that, it should cost more than the other." And that's fine, that's your opinion. But you ask 100 players, and I guarantee you that at least 90 of them would feel the opposite. Ask a thousand and I *guarantee* you that 900+ of them would feel that the Exalted Griffon should be the more pricey option (assuming they're being honest, of course). And that's what the price should be based on, what the majority would agree is the correct price for the item in question, *regardless* of outliers. And if ANet doesn't already know which of those skins belong in the "common" rarity slot, and which in the "rare" rarity slot, then they are seriously bad at what they do. I have more faith in them than that, and you should too. And of course if they do make the occasional mistake, which everyone does, that's ok, because it balances out over time. Some items might not sell as well at a given price as they may have liked, some might sell crazy numbers at the list price so perhaps it could have been in a higher bracket, but over time it balances out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalibri.5861 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 Yeah, they still haven't figured it out. All of you 'this price makes sense' folks are drinking some sort of kool-aid if you're lapping up an obvious grab like this. Price for individual license is still too high, and they still need to address the old RNG licenses. I feel like the ideal place would be 400 for RNG, 700-1000 for specifics, and break it all up into sets of ten licenses each for the RNG folks. For a 10% chance, I feel like even the anti-RNG folks would give it a whirl. Nice try ArenaNet. Please try harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutdude.9582 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 Whilst I admire ArenaNet for listening to their fan base and providing a method of obtaining the new mount skins that is not reliant on a random number generator, I feel they were overly aggressive with their pricing. 1,200 gems is approximately £12.77, which works out to be around half the price of purchasing Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire. I do like the new mount skins. It is clear that a lot of effort has gone into making them. However, I feel let down by the billing team at ArenaNet this time so I will not be purchasing them with either money or gold (via gold -> gem conversion). I shall live in hope that this pricing attitude changes with future skin releases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > The quality of each skin is purely subjective and only the as an individual can we decide if we like it or not. > > > > > > > > > > Not at all. Skin quality can be measured by objective values. Color pattern "skins" are significantly less valuable than skins offering auras, model changes, new sound effects etc. Pricing simple color pattern skin the same as "premium" quality skin is definitely questionable practice. > > > > > > > > And who decides if it is quality.. me and you. > > > > > > You can decide whether you like it or not. I presented you objective way of measuring skins different quality levels. Are you going to argue that skin giving nothing but color pattern has the same value as the skin changing the model and adding aura? > > > > > > For example: > > > [This skin](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Coastal_Spiketail) is a color pattern. While [this one](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Flamelander) gives additional aura. The second one took more work to be done therefore is worth more and should be priced differently. > > > > Your looking it at from the wrong side. > > When I design something it is costed appropriately based on factors relevant to my the business.. through that I know my break point.. then you take a look at historical demands and then you consider future endeavours.. mix all that into the soup bowl and a price is born based on what the business deems it to be worth and what they look to make from it. > > Now look from the other side.. while ANET's idea of the quality of that skin is high because of the time, expertise, technical drift it offers to me .. I on the other hand think it looks awful, sounds weird or annoying and so I do not deem it quality so I don't buy it. > > But then you say .. ooh awesome, like that it has go fast stripes and sound like a roadrunner.. I want it - kerchinnggg > > That is just how subjective the quality of that product is.. no matter how fine tuned ANET made it.. it met with different opinions on its quality. > > Developer and consumer are two different animals and that is the risk ANET take. > > At the end of the day, the demand for the product will steer whether the quality and price have met with ANET's forecast...but like I said there is no right or wrong in this its down to an individual like or not buy or not. > > You are again not understanding the difference between personal taste and objective value aspects. It's just like legendary weapons or BLC sets. They cost more (and are monetized) because they present more value - animations, auras, effects. Meanwhile mounts of different tier of quality cost the same (except 2k gems "legendary" skins). > > Anyway, I'm done discussing this subject with you. If you don't accept my explanation and objective aspects of skin quality and pricing differences I can't help you any further. Good luck with your adventures. There is no such thing as objective value for cosmetics of this sort. Value here is subjective. If a player doesnt care for flashy auras and such, but does like the ability to color his cosmetics in realistic, or subdued, colors then the value, for him, of the color skins is greater than the value of the aura skins. For example, the basic greatsword skin is of more value to me than any of the legendary greatswords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > > The quality of each skin is purely subjective and only the as an individual can we decide if we like it or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not at all. Skin quality can be measured by objective values. Color pattern "skins" are significantly less valuable than skins offering auras, model changes, new sound effects etc. Pricing simple color pattern skin the same as "premium" quality skin is definitely questionable practice. > > > > > > > > > > And who decides if it is quality.. me and you. > > > > > > > > You can decide whether you like it or not. I presented you objective way of measuring skins different quality levels. Are you going to argue that skin giving nothing but color pattern has the same value as the skin changing the model and adding aura? > > > > > > > > For example: > > > > [This skin](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Coastal_Spiketail) is a color pattern. While [this one](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Flamelander) gives additional aura. The second one took more work to be done therefore is worth more and should be priced differently. > > > > > > Your looking it at from the wrong side. > > > When I design something it is costed appropriately based on factors relevant to my the business.. through that I know my break point.. then you take a look at historical demands and then you consider future endeavours.. mix all that into the soup bowl and a price is born based on what the business deems it to be worth and what they look to make from it. > > > Now look from the other side.. while ANET's idea of the quality of that skin is high because of the time, expertise, technical drift it offers to me .. I on the other hand think it looks awful, sounds weird or annoying and so I do not deem it quality so I don't buy it. > > > But then you say .. ooh awesome, like that it has go fast stripes and sound like a roadrunner.. I want it - kerchinnggg > > > That is just how subjective the quality of that product is.. no matter how fine tuned ANET made it.. it met with different opinions on its quality. > > > Developer and consumer are two different animals and that is the risk ANET take. > > > At the end of the day, the demand for the product will steer whether the quality and price have met with ANET's forecast...but like I said there is no right or wrong in this its down to an individual like or not buy or not. > > > > You are again not understanding the difference between personal taste and objective value aspects. It's just like legendary weapons or BLC sets. They cost more (and are monetized) because they present more value - animations, auras, effects. Meanwhile mounts of different tier of quality cost the same (except 2k gems "legendary" skins). > > > > Anyway, I'm done discussing this subject with you. If you don't accept my explanation and objective aspects of skin quality and pricing differences I can't help you any further. Good luck with your adventures. > > There is no such thing as objective value for cosmetics of this sort. Value here is subjective. > > If a player doesnt care for flashy auras and such, but does like the ability to color his cosmetics in realistic, or subdued, colors then the value, for him, of the color skins is greater than the value of the aura skins. > > For example, the basic greatsword skin is of more value to me than any of the legendary greatswords. Finally.. someone gets it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said: > > > > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > > > > The quality of each skin is purely subjective and only the as an individual can we decide if we like it or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not at all. Skin quality can be measured by objective values. Color pattern "skins" are significantly less valuable than skins offering auras, model changes, new sound effects etc. Pricing simple color pattern skin the same as "premium" quality skin is definitely questionable practice. > > > > > > > > > > And who decides if it is quality.. me and you. > > > > > > > > You can decide whether you like it or not. I presented you objective way of measuring skins different quality levels. Are you going to argue that skin giving nothing but color pattern has the same value as the skin changing the model and adding aura? > > > > > > > > For example: > > > > [This skin](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Coastal_Spiketail) is a color pattern. While [this one](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Flamelander) gives additional aura. The second one took more work to be done therefore is worth more and should be priced differently. > > > > > > Your looking it at from the wrong side. > > > When I design something it is costed appropriately based on factors relevant to my the business.. through that I know my break point.. then you take a look at historical demands and then you consider future endeavours.. mix all that into the soup bowl and a price is born based on what the business deems it to be worth and what they look to make from it. > > > Now look from the other side.. while ANET's idea of the quality of that skin is high because of the time, expertise, technical drift it offers to me .. I on the other hand think it looks awful, sounds weird or annoying and so I do not deem it quality so I don't buy it. > > > But then you say .. ooh awesome, like that it has go fast stripes and sound like a roadrunner.. I want it - kerchinnggg > > > That is just how subjective the quality of that product is.. no matter how fine tuned ANET made it.. it met with different opinions on its quality. > > > Developer and consumer are two different animals and that is the risk ANET take. > > > At the end of the day, the demand for the product will steer whether the quality and price have met with ANET's forecast...but like I said there is no right or wrong in this its down to an individual like or not buy or not. > > > > You are again not understanding the difference between personal taste and objective value aspects. It's just like legendary weapons or BLC sets. They cost more (and are monetized) because they present more value - animations, auras, effects. Meanwhile mounts of different tier of quality cost the same (except 2k gems "legendary" skins). > > > > Anyway, I'm done discussing this subject with you. If you don't accept my explanation and objective aspects of skin quality and pricing differences I can't help you any further. Good luck with your adventures. > > There is no such thing as objective value for cosmetics of this sort. If you have a car an you add neons, spoilers and pink fumes to it - you pay for the car. There is objective value to cosmetics and I explained why. The mater of "like it or not" is irrelevant here. If what you say was true (it's not) how do you explain premium 2k gems mount skins in gem store? 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