Ashen.2907 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > @"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? > What I said there is factually correct. Charging more for something because it cost more to produce, or because the producer thinks that a sufficiency of consumers will subjectively value it to merit that price doesnt make value of art to be objective. 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: > > > @"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? > > > > What I said there is factually correct. > > Charging more for something because it cost more to produce, or because the producer thinks that a sufficiency of consumers will subjectively value it to merit that price doesnt make value of art to be objective. > It's not a value of "art". It's value of feature. Skin 1 is color pattern, skin 2 is color pattern + aura (animated effect). This alone makes 2nd skin more valuable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maikimaik.1974 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 Skins are luxury items. $15 seem quite reasonable to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deimos.4263 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > 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. This in a nutshell is what's going on. Someone at ArenaNet or their parent has decided that they need more money, and that the best way to get it is an average higher price on their offerings. Along with various marketing techniques to make those offerings seem worthwhile at a higher price point. We've been seeing a gradual uptick in the price of items offered since well before mounts were released and it is continuing to trend upwards. Not every item of course, but more and more items in the 1k+ range than previous. I'm not sure I agree with the strategy here, but that's their error to make as a company. I didn't buy the first set of skins on principle because I didn't want to support the RNG plan, which certainly seemed to be screwing over the little guy. I thought that was the right decision at the time to try to support the community. They made it sound like they wouldn't do it again without actually saying they wouldn't, then of course they did a very similar thing but most people are now accepting it as a compromise. Brilliant, well played. I'd rather they just went subscription at this point; they'd get their money and gem store cosmetics could be cheaper again, without all the shenanigans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNecrosanct.4028 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Deimos.4263" said: > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > 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. > This in a nutshell is what's going on. Someone at ArenaNet or their parent has decided that they need more money, and that the best way to get it is an average higher price on their offerings. Along with various marketing techniques to make those offerings seem worthwhile at a higher price point. > > We've been seeing a gradual uptick in the price of items offered since well before mounts were released and it is continuing to trend upwards. Not every item of course, but more and more items in the 1k+ range than previous. I'm not sure I agree with the strategy here, but that's their error to make as a company. > > I didn't buy the first set of skins on principle because I didn't want to support the RNG plan, which certainly seemed to be screwing over the little guy. I thought that was the right decision at the time to try to support the community. They made it sound like they wouldn't do it again without actually saying they wouldn't, then of course they did a very similar thing but most people are now accepting it as a compromise. Brilliant, well played. > > I'd rather they just went subscription at this point; they'd get their money and gem store cosmetics could be cheaper again, without all the shenanigans. Except it is a compromise. Pack 1: only RNG, fixed price per single skin. Pack 2: RNG and guaranteed option, both at fixed prices, the second being a higher price than the first. People asked for the option of guaranteed choice and they got it. They said they were willing to pay more for it (how much more of course depends on the individual person) and that's what ANet did. So yes, it is a compromise, even if you don't agree with the particulars of it. Going subscription would mean spending more money on this game than most people do now. It would mean all the people who can't afford to play a subscription MMO would disappear. It would also mean that people who are opposed to subscriptions would disappear. It makes the threshold to start playing GW2 higher. Besides, it's an outdated concept that very few MMO's actually manage to pull off successfully these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majirah.5089 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"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. Unless you are a qualified accountant working for Anet on this game you do not have the data or expertise you need to determine the standard and actual costs of the skin. Those values you spouted have no basis whatsoever. Nor do you have the data to properly price these items to achieve the desired profit. You don’t think they are worth the current price, then don’t buy them. The people that do think they are worth it will buy them. But don’t think that just because you want it cheaper means that you actually know how much it costs to develop and have omniscience in sales forecasts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Deimos.4263" said: > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > 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. > This in a nutshell is what's going on. Someone at ArenaNet or their parent has decided that they need more money, and that the best way to get it is an average higher price on their offerings. Along with various marketing techniques to make those offerings seem worthwhile at a higher price point. > > We've been seeing a gradual uptick in the price of items offered since well before mounts were released and it is continuing to trend upwards. Not every item of course, but more and more items in the 1k+ range than previous. I'm not sure I agree with the strategy here, but that's their error to make as a company. > > I didn't buy the first set of skins on principle because I didn't want to support the RNG plan, which certainly seemed to be screwing over the little guy. I thought that was the right decision at the time to try to support the community. They made it sound like they wouldn't do it again without actually saying they wouldn't, then of course they did a very similar thing but most people are now accepting it as a compromise. Brilliant, well played. > > I'd rather they just went subscription at this point; they'd get their money and gem store cosmetics could be cheaper again, without all the shenanigans. Gw2 going sub is death sentence for this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Majirah.5089" said: > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > @"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. > > Unless you are a qualified accountant working for Anet on this game you do not have the data or expertise you need to determine the standard and actual costs of the skin. Those values you spouted have no basis whatsoever. Nor do you have the data to properly price these items to achieve the desired profit. > > You don’t think they are worth the current price, then don’t buy them. The people that do think they are worth it will buy them. But don’t think that just because you want it cheaper means that you actually know how much it costs to develop and have omniscience in sales forecasts. No. This is very right of the customer to say the price offered is too big. It is even more constructive to suggest the price that would make customer happy. You, however, have no authority here to tell the customer to be quiet so please discuss the subject and leave judgement part for Anet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majirah.5089 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > @"Majirah.5089" said: > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > > @"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. > > > > Unless you are a qualified accountant working for Anet on this game you do not have the data or expertise you need to determine the standard and actual costs of the skin. Those values you spouted have no basis whatsoever. Nor do you have the data to properly price these items to achieve the desired profit. > > > > You don’t think they are worth the current price, then don’t buy them. The people that do think they are worth it will buy them. But don’t think that just because you want it cheaper means that you actually know how much it costs to develop and have omniscience in sales forecasts. > > No. This is very right of the customer to say the price offered is too big. It is even more constructive to suggest the price that would make customer happy. You, however, have no authority here to tell the customer to be quiet so please discuss the subject and leave judgement part for Anet. You have no authority to tell me (the customer) to be quiet either. I am doing exactly what you request that I do. I am discussing the topic, but have a different opinion than you. I am leaving judgement to Anet as only they have the data to back up what they are doing. I am refuting other people’s comments that indicate their judgment is better than Anets. Most people do not understand that price and cost are two different, but related concepts. The post I responded to said Anet should cost the skins appropriately. Only Anet has the data to know how to cost the skins and the customer has no influence or authority over costs. The only influence customers have over costs is indirect and is purely Anet deciding if they think the customer will buy the finished good related to the raw materials, direct and indirect labor, overhead, and G&A costs (expenses if you like that term better) related to the finished good. The customer however does not have any direct say over costs. Price is different. The customer can heavily influence price by either not buying the product or by buying more of it than expected. Customers though do not generally have the data to forecast sales at any given price point. Anet does and has priced the product at a point they believe to right. I as a customer agree that it is reasonable to me. Others do not and that’s fine because they don’t have to buy it. I am happy with the price and so I have bought the product. But when customers think they know what the costs are and sales forecasts are without relevant data, then I refute those statements as they are without basis. Saying, “this product is too expensive for me so I won’t buy it” is very different than saying “Anet doesn’t know how to cost and price their products.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Majirah.5089" said: > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > @"Majirah.5089" said: > > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > > > @"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. > > > > > > Unless you are a qualified accountant working for Anet on this game you do not have the data or expertise you need to determine the standard and actual costs of the skin. Those values you spouted have no basis whatsoever. Nor do you have the data to properly price these items to achieve the desired profit. > > > > > > You don’t think they are worth the current price, then don’t buy them. The people that do think they are worth it will buy them. But don’t think that just because you want it cheaper means that you actually know how much it costs to develop and have omniscience in sales forecasts. > > > > No. This is very right of the customer to say the price offered is too big. It is even more constructive to suggest the price that would make customer happy. You, however, have no authority here to tell the customer to be quiet so please discuss the subject and leave judgement part for Anet. > > You have no authority to tell me (the customer) to be quiet either. I am not telling you to be quiet, I am telling you to discuss the subject and leave for Anet to decide what to do. Your post brings nothing about the subject, it's personal attack towards other customer that is neither justified not allowed. If you like current pricing, you can say this and explain why. Telling the other guy "dont talk, anet knows better" is not the way to provide feedback and damages discussion standards altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majirah.5089 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > @"Majirah.5089" said: > > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > > > @"Majirah.5089" said: > > > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > > > > @"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. > > > > > > > > Unless you are a qualified accountant working for Anet on this game you do not have the data or expertise you need to determine the standard and actual costs of the skin. Those values you spouted have no basis whatsoever. Nor do you have the data to properly price these items to achieve the desired profit. > > > > > > > > You don’t think they are worth the current price, then don’t buy them. The people that do think they are worth it will buy them. But don’t think that just because you want it cheaper means that you actually know how much it costs to develop and have omniscience in sales forecasts. > > > > > > No. This is very right of the customer to say the price offered is too big. It is even more constructive to suggest the price that would make customer happy. You, however, have no authority here to tell the customer to be quiet so please discuss the subject and leave judgement part for Anet. > > > > You have no authority to tell me (the customer) to be quiet either. > > I am not telling you to be quiet, I am telling you to discuss the subject and leave for Anet to decide what to do. Your post brings nothing about the subject, it's personal attack towards other customer that is neither justified not allowed. If you like current pricing, you can say this and explain why. Telling the other guy "dont talk, anet knows better" is not the way to provide feedback and damages discussion standards altogether. > I am discussing the subject. It is not a personal attack to say that a comment has no basis in fact or support. I am not attacking their person, but I am refuting a comment they made. There is a difference. I have explained why I am fine with the current pricing. I didn’t tell anyone not to talk. I told them that what they said doesn’t have a basis on known meaningful data. That is very different. Just because my opinion differs from your doesn’t mean it is damaging to the discussion. We are both providing feedback to Anet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarshallLaw.9260 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"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. That's how you've interpreted my comment, I'm sorry you jumped to that conclusion. > >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. It's called poetic exaggeration. > >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. There is actually not much need for this "feedback". Do you know why? - Because ANet can probably, **_somehow_**, find out how many have been sold in the Gem store. The vegan reference is clearly lost on you, but really it's not that important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Majirah.5089" said: > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > @"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. > > Unless you are a qualified accountant working for Anet on this game you do not have the data or expertise you need to determine the standard and actual costs of the skin. Those values you spouted have no basis whatsoever. Nor do you have the data to properly price these items to achieve the desired profit. > > You don’t think they are worth the current price, then don’t buy them. The people that do think they are worth it will buy them. But don’t think that just because you want it cheaper means that you actually know how much it costs to develop and have omniscience in sales forecasts. Halelulyah.. someone has seen the light .. give this person a free mount skin please :) > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > @"Majirah.5089" said: > > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > > @"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. > > > > Unless you are a qualified accountant working for Anet on this game you do not have the data or expertise you need to determine the standard and actual costs of the skin. Those values you spouted have no basis whatsoever. Nor do you have the data to properly price these items to achieve the desired profit. > > > > You don’t think they are worth the current price, then don’t buy them. The people that do think they are worth it will buy them. But don’t think that just because you want it cheaper means that you actually know how much it costs to develop and have omniscience in sales forecasts. > > No. This is very right of the customer to say the price offered is too big. It is even more constructive to suggest the price that would make customer happy. You, however, have no authority here to tell the customer to be quiet so please discuss the subject and leave judgement part for Anet. Agree as a consumer you absolutely have the right to voice your opinion.. but that is all it is unless you have some hard facts to back it up. Just throwing numbers out there in the hope they get their way is absolutely futile and holds no water in this. No one except ANET knows the true cost and only they know what their break point and what their forecasts are, all we as a consumer can do is decide on a personal level whether we value the product enough to buy it, which option of purchase serves us best or keep our hands in our pockets and pass. Just coming out saying its not worth it, everyone else wants it lower its not good enough quality for the price and they should be priced at 'x' gens or 'y' games is nothing more than a baseless emotive opinion. If that poster doesn't like it then it is simple - DO NOT BUY IT but don't try to use the "everyone" reasoning behind something that is 100% individually subjective, because its just baseless heresay. EDIT - BTW how was @Majirah personally attacking in his post, I could not see anything suggesting he was attacking.. he was actually stating facts and offering them for discussion - huge difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Ashen.2907" said: > There is no such thing as objective value for cosmetics of this sort. Value here is subjective. Yes, but again, that is irrelevant to the discussion. There is no "truly objective value" for anything in the world. Fact. Everyone has their own "subjective value" for things, which can be anything. You can value a bar o soap more than a bar of old if you want. Fact. But there is *also* a *consensus* value for items in the world, a collective agreement between people as to what the "right" value for an item is, That consensus value might be higher or lower than *you* subjective value for the item, and may be higher or lower than *ANet's* subjective value for the item, but as a business, part of their job is to figure out what that consensus value is for any item they hope to sell, and to get that value as close as possible. I, and many others, feel that they have missed the mark on this product so far. It has NOTHING to do with individual subjective value. > @"TheNecrosanct.4028" said: > Except it is a compromise. Pack 1: only RNG, fixed price per single skin. Pack 2: RNG and guaranteed option, both at fixed prices, the second being a higher price than the first. People asked for the option of guaranteed choice and they got it. A "compromise" is not necessarily a good thing. If the first offer is awful, then the second deal can be "a compromise" and *still* be awful. Yes, everyone agrees that this deal is better than the first (which they *still* haven't fixed), but they still have distance to go before we can't claim that they got it right. >They said they were willing to pay more for it (how much more of course depends on the individual person) and that's what ANet did. So yes, it is a compromise, even if you don't agree with the particulars of it. Nobody said that they would be willing to pay more. Maybe for some of the skins, but not for every skin in the set. *at the time,* the argument was that most of the available skins should be the same cost as the Mount License, because that is what they were worth. > @"Majirah.5089" said: > Unless you are a qualified accountant working for Anet on this game you do not have the data or expertise you need to determine the standard and actual costs of the skin. Those values you spouted have no basis whatsoever. Nor do you have the data to properly price these items to achieve the desired profit. None of that matters. You do not need to be an accountant or work at ANet to know the value of the skins, the value is set from the outside. It is ANet's job to produce the skins *within* that value, not to set the value based on what it cost them to produce it. > @"MarshallLaw.9260" said: > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > 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. > It's called poetic exaggeration. It's called hyperbole, and it doesn't help the conversation. If you disagree with some of your fellow posters, address their actual points, don't make up points for them that they would never support, just so that you have something easier to attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrizzFreston.5290 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 Buying them all: 6000 gems Picking one of each mount type with guarantee: 6000 gems. Doesn't really seem worth it to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majirah.5089 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > @"Majirah.5089" said: > > Unless you are a qualified accountant working for Anet on this game you do not have the data or expertise you need to determine the standard and actual costs of the skin. Those values you spouted have no basis whatsoever. Nor do you have the data to properly price these items to achieve the desired profit. > > None of that matters. You do not need to be an accountant or work at ANet to know the value of the skins, the value is set from the outside. It is ANet's job to produce the skins *within* that value, not to set the value based on what it cost them to produce it. > It very much does matter in relation the post I commented on. You do need to be an accountant working for Anet to understand the true costs of the projects. I would venture to guess that even the developers don’t know them very well as most of the time the operational side of business doesnt know the nitty gritty of financials, which is one reason why accountants and financial analysts exist. The poster said they should cost appropriately. Customers have no control over company costs. Cost, price, and value are all separate, but interrelated concepts. They all have bearing on the topic at hand, but people should know what they mean before making comments without basis. Costs are a vary important consideration in setting price. A producer cannot just set the price at whatever the customer wants without considering costs. Also, as has been previously stated in this discussion, value (meaning the intrinsic attractiveness of an item) is very subjective. One consumer may value a certain feature very highly while another customer may hate it and place negative value on it. So, Anet has to set price to cover costs and is forecasted to achieve the highest profit. All of this requires data that we as the consumer do not have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndigoSundown.5419 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > But there is *also* a *consensus* value for items in the world, a collective agreement between people as to what the "right" value for an item is, That consensus value might be higher or lower than *you* subjective value for the item, and may be higher or lower than *ANet's* subjective value for the item, but as a business, part of their job is to figure out what that consensus value is for any item they hope to sell, and to get that value as close as possible. I, and many others, feel that they have missed the mark on this product so far. The job of people in business is not to determine some "consensus value," it is to determine the price point at which the item will make the most money. That is based on what "enough" people are willing to pay, not what everyone collectively would prefer to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majirah.5089 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > > But there is *also* a *consensus* value for items in the world, a collective agreement between people as to what the "right" value for an item is, That consensus value might be higher or lower than *you* subjective value for the item, and may be higher or lower than *ANet's* subjective value for the item, but as a business, part of their job is to figure out what that consensus value is for any item they hope to sell, and to get that value as close as possible. I, and many others, feel that they have missed the mark on this product so far. > > The job of people in business is not to determine some "consensus value," it is to determine the price point at which the item will make the most money. That is based on what "enough" people are willing to pay, not what everyone collectively would prefer to pay. I think it’s also helpful to note that a businesses have target markets. GW2 as product is not directed to everyone. Not even to everyone who plays games. It is directed to the people who like to play mmos. You can probably get even more specific than that. Cosmetic skins are also not directed to everyone. Not even everyone who plays GW2. Anet surely knows that not everyone is going to buy every gem store item. They are trying to attract certain people with their items and as many of those people as they can. Also, in regards to the post you qouted, there is not a worldwide consensus of the value of pretty much anything. No collective agreement on the value of pretty much anything. Some items have a semblance of collective agreement (various securities or currencies perhaps), but even those don’t count as not everyone is willing to transact with those items. Thus showing that they do not agree with a supposed consensus. Value is subjective and in many cases can vary a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > It's not a value of "art". It's value of feature. Skin 1 is color pattern, skin 2 is color pattern + aura (animated effect). This alone makes 2nd skin more valuable. No it does not. Value of cosmetics, you see, is subjective. The addition of auras + effects decreases the value for me (as an example). The base mount skins are more desirable, worth more, of more value, to me, than those with auras and effects. Objective has a pretty solid definition. Key aspects of that definition, in this context, is a lack of influence by personal opinion or preference. If personal opinion or preference come into play, as they do any time cosmetics are involved, then by definition the matter is subjective. The earth's mass can be objectively measured. The speed of light can be described objectively. The value of a cosmetic option cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fremtid.3528 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > It's not a value of "art". It's value of feature. Skin 1 is color pattern, skin 2 is color pattern + aura (animated effect). This alone makes 2nd skin more valuable. > > No it does not. Value of cosmetics, you see, is subjective. The addition of auras + effects decreases the value for me (as an example). The base mount skins are more desirable, worth more, of more value, to me, than those with auras and effects. > > Objective has a pretty solid definition. Key aspects of that definition, in this context, is a lack of influence by personal opinion or preference. If personal opinion or preference come into play, as they do any time cosmetics are involved, then by definition the matter is subjective. > > The earth's mass can be objectively measured. The speed of light can be described objectively. The value of a cosmetic option cannot. It's like that old quote beauty is in the eye of the beholder y'all. However I think this new move is fine, but I felt there was nothing terribly wrong with the old rng method except there was too large of a selection which meant you had to shell out $100ish dollars to definitely get the one you want that was my only issue. But look how cute these new ones are y'all https://imgur.com/a/AmAru https://imgur.com/a/6PkOk I pretty much own everything in the gemstore tho lol except the 2k mounts and the branded mounts but now i'm regretting now buying a few of the 2k mounts coz seeing a few of them around tyria they've grown on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Majirah.5089" said: > You do need to be an accountant working for Anet to understand the true costs of the projects. but again, you do not need to know the cost of production to determine the cost they should be sold at. The cost they should be sold at is determined by the consumers. It is ANet's job to keep the costs of production *below* that cost, not the other way around. >Also, as has been previously stated in this discussion, value (meaning the intrinsic attractiveness of an item) is very subjective. One consumer may value a certain feature very highly while another customer may hate it and place negative value on it. And again, as has previously stated in this discussion, the value is set by a consensus of customers, and individual subjectivity balances out between multiple opinions. The subjective value ANet places on an item might be different than the consensus view of the customers, in which case they need to adapt their pricing. Nobody is saying they aren't allowed to make a *mistake* in their initial pricing of an item, that is only a problem if they don't act swiftly to *correct* that mistake. > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: >The job of people in business is not to determine some "consensus value," it is to determine the price point at which the item will make the most money. That is based on what "enough" people are willing to pay, not what everyone collectively would prefer to pay. Broadly speaking, there is no distinction between those two values (outside of situations in which manufacturing and distribution costs are a factor). > @"Majirah.5089" said: > I think it’s also helpful to note that a businesses have target markets. GW2 as product is not directed to everyone. Not even to everyone who plays games. It is directed to the people who like to play mmos. You can probably get even more specific than that. Cosmetic skins are also not directed to everyone. Not even everyone who plays GW2. Anet surely knows that not everyone is going to buy every gem store item. They are trying to attract certain people with their items and as many of those people as they can. Agreed, but irrelevant to this discussion, as *both* sides are only discussing players who would be willing to pay a fair price for the items in question. > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > @"Kheldorn.5123" said: > > It's not a value of "art". It's value of feature. Skin 1 is color pattern, skin 2 is color pattern + aura (animated effect). This alone makes 2nd skin more valuable. > > No it does not. Value of cosmetics, you see, is subjective. The addition of auras + effects decreases the value for me (as an example). The base mount skins are more desirable, worth more, of more value, to me, than those with auras and effects. You having a subjective opinion does not negate the fact that there is also a consensus view, which may or may not coincide with that personal opinion. They are two completely separate concepts. Just because you have a subjective opinion that may differ from the consensus does not mean that the consensus does not matter. When dealing with a commercial product, subjective opinions *in aggregate,* **do matter.** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndigoSundown.5419 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 > @"Ohoni.6057" said: > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > >The job of people in business is not to determine some "consensus value," it is to determine the price point at which the item will make the most money. That is based on what "enough" people are willing to pay, not what everyone collectively would prefer to pay. > > Broadly speaking, there is no distinction between those two values (outside of situations in which manufacturing and distribution costs are a factor). As I'm sure you know, for a price point lower than the price a significant subset of the market is willing to pay to be more lucrative, the lower price point needs to generate enough additional sales beyond those needed to offset revenue lost by selling to customers willing to pay more. That will be a function both of the number of customers willing to pay more and the additional number willing to pay less. Do you by chance happen to have those numbers? No? I thought not. So, your whole premise is based on an assumption that you have not and cannot prove. It's my guess at this point that ANet priced the 1200 gem skins based on the Mountgate feedback, setting it in the high range of amounts people said they'd be willing to pay to avoid RNG. Maybe they already have enough data from prior cosmetic sales that they're making an educated choice. If not, they may experiment with other price points later. I very much doubt they will ever go for a "consensus" price point. They may not have per-unit costs to consider, but they will have revenue targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo G.4501 Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 > @"Donutdude.9582" said: > 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. > Just wanted to respond to this point, as the previous points made I don't particularly disagree with. But this.... Rather than looking at specific items compared to the price of the game, why not compare it to other games which require you to purchase the game, pay a subscription and buy the skin? It's disingenuous to divide the game's price as a measuring stick when you do not have to pay a subscription to play the game nor do you actually require the skin. Because if we're speaking realistically, you could go months and months without spending a single gem only to see something you really like and end up spending 1 month's worth of gems once and proceed to not buy anything else for however many months afterward. Is that actually unreasonable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohoni.6057 Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > Do you by chance happen to have those numbers? No? I thought not. So, your whole premise is based on an assumption that you have not and cannot prove. It's my guess at this point that ANet priced the 1200 gem skins based on the Mountgate feedback, setting it in the high range of amounts people said they'd be willing to pay to avoid RNG. Which is a very cynical and self-limiting approach, given how many more players said that they would be more willing to purchase at a lower price than that. I have no doubt that they have and will make sales at the 1200 pricepoint. I also have no doubt that they would make a lot *more* sales at lower pricepoints. Look at the skins they have right now. There are fifteen of them. Of those, I'm sure that maybe five to ten of them will sell decently well at 1200 gems. The rest, I'm sure will sell almost no copies at 1200, and the *only* players to be wearing them will be people who got them in random rolls. That should not be the case, they should all be priced at a level where they sell roughly equal numbers, with the less popular ones having prices that make them enough of a bargain that people pick them up anyway. > They may not have per-unit costs to consider, but they will have revenue targets. And I believe that the best way to hit those targets is to mobilize every potential customer possible. > @"Leo G.4501" said: >Rather than looking at specific items compared to the price of the game, why not compare it to other games which require you to purchase the game, pay a subscription and buy the skin? Because that's a different game, with a different business model, which may work for them, but may not work at all for GW2 or its players. It's useful to *consider* such things, but it's not really evidence for or against what would be appropriate for GW2. You might point to a game like WoW, for example, which routinely gets away with schemes that NO other game could possibly even consider, but obviously "better deal than WoW, is not a standard any game company could take any pride in. You could also look to various other games that offer *much* more generous terms, with skins in the $1-2 range. Is that appropriate for GW2 skins? Maybe, maybe not. The question is what works for GW2, not what the other guys are doing. >Because if we're speaking realistically, you could go months and months without spending a single gem only to see something you really like and end up spending 1 month's worth of gems once and proceed to not buy anything else for however many months afterward. And I do just that, but I ONLY spend money when I believe that the deal being offered is a sound one. When I feel that the company in question is overcharging for a particular item, I am repulsed from buying it, or even in the worst case, where I actually do buy that one thing, I'm doubly suspicious of any future offers for months afterward. The flipside of that is that when I feel like I'm being offered a good deal, I will buy up things left and right. I mean, back when Steam was running actual Steam Sales, I bought up dozens of $3-10 games that I still haven't even installed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 > @"Ashen.2907" said: > No it does not. Value of cosmetics, you see, is subjective. I give up. Goodbye. 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