Mount skins available through achievements.

[Chasind.3128]

It would be nice to have something that is prestigious. like a 5%, and a skin to show for it.

Nothing feels prestigious or worked-hard for. You can make a legendary in less than a week. Heck, even WoW had made getting mounts/ cosmetics easier but alot of it is locked behind actually doing the content and under an rng event so you'll keep doing it.

[Drecien.4508]

Out the frumpy dull ones into cheevos and the pretty ones kept in the gem store? That's what they hear.

[ProtoGunner.4953]

> @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> > @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> > > @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> > > > @"ProtoGunner.4953" said:

> > > > But on the other hand: They would generate enough money, if they give us like 1 per 10 skins. I can't imagine that this will change the income significantly. I just think that the proportion is out of balance. I mean i.e. glider skins: three - take note - legendary skin back packs are available aside from the basic skin via in game. And dozens of other skins are not, not a single one. It is imo a missed opportunity like the Soul River Glider skin would be a perfect rare drop from Gorseval raid boss etc.

> > >

> > > But consider it from their perspective: what is in it for them? Even if they take 10% of the skins they are currently selling and offer them for free in-game, that is a 10% reduction in items they will sell, and for what? To get you to play in game longer? How does that benefit them, as there is no sub fee? Blizzard reaps rewards by giving you so much to do that you are spending day after day, month after month subbing in order to acquire stuff, but ANET's costs actually go up if you just play more, because you are using up server resources.

> > >

> > > I get that you (and by extension us) would like that change because it benefits us, but it doesn't benefit ANET or their bottom line. Even if their current system causes some players to quit the game, if they weren't already purchasing Gems, then again there is no financial loss to ANET.

> > >

> > > With their current system, if they keep putting items in the Gem you really want, you will do one of two things:

> > > 1. Pay with real $$$, which is what they want and need

> > > 2. Play the game to earn gold to convert to gems, which them keeps the world populated, which is of course important.

> > >

> > > ANET has managed to navigate a very fine line on this issue. They generate income through purely optional cosmetic accessories, while at the same time encouraging a segment of the customer base to participate (more) in game to earn gold and acquire gems, made available by other players who purchased them with real money. And then there is the huge majority of players who just don't care, and want to play GW2 because they like to play GW2.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > First, 10% of mount skins wouldn't make 10% of the full gem store. It rather would make a couple of percent. And second: Recent development of gaming industry and the industry in a whole shows that if you show that your company isn't entirely money-oriented but also are dedicated developers in the end it may have a positive effect (or like EA with Battlefront II a negative). Do you know what I mean?

>

> Sorry, I feel you're projecting here. Tossing in a comparison to EA Battlefront II isn't even remotely relevant, given that title was using loot boxes as a means to progress characters in game (Pay to Win) which is 100% NOT what ANET is doing.

>

> "Show that your company isn't entirely money-oriented". Um...what? ANET is here to make MONEY. Period. End of conversation. Don't bother trying to start a conversation about their motivations, because it's a waste of time. They are a business. They work to make money. If for some reason they don't make enough money, the company goes bankrupt, and the game stops being maintained. They aren't going to say "gee, we love GW2 players, we'll continue to incur costs of maintaining the game because we heart it so". That's just blatant naiveté.

>

> Now, at the same time, how much did it cost you for the last episode of Living story which included a brand new mount? The chapter before that? The one before that? How much did they charge you for the Festival of Four Winds that just went live today?

>

> How do you think ANET pays for all this content? I'll leave you to think on that.

 

I was in a hurry and I am not an native English speaker, so it's not that easy to explain what I meant. I try to flesh out everything: I think it is hard to argue without knowledge of their finances and company structures. Also, I wasn't talking about a company being nice and giving away free items. No, I mean that in the end, if a company shows respect towards the gaming community and doesn't monetise everything to the maximum - i.e. CD Project Red or recently the new God of War (no DLC, loot boxes, etc.) - the trust from the consumer towards the company is better. It may be naivité, short sightedness or living in an ivory tower as a long time gamer in a gamer community, be cause we all know that the vocal minority is strong. It may be - and all the mobile phone game market shows that - that making fast money is the ultimate and only goal.

 

But recent development of EA shows that acquiring a company/franchise, monetise it and left it to rot only helps in the short term. They aren't helping the industry and they ultimately would have a better starting position if they actually care for their studios and franchises - _in the long term_. Maybe you are right, and I just want to live a dream. Maybe I believe in humanity because I work at a place where we do _not_ monetise everything and also spend money for public social aids etc.

 

By the way, I spent several hundreds if not thousands of € for this game in the past 6 years in order to support it. This doesn't mean that I expect to get free mount skins. I just think it is a missed opportunity as rewards for quests/achievements etc. And hence, people may be more willing to pay real money for other items. It won't help if people always try to answer in place of Anet with 'they have to make money' or 'they said they never introduce mounts' (which isn't even true). They sell the game btw. Also, they have a simpler server structure as other MMOs since every zone is a single instance, so maintenance cost is lower. Also they sell the episodes for later use. And also, they had a much smaller real money shop in GW1, but these were other times.

 

But the single most argument still remains: Would you argue the same way if every single skin (weapons, armor) - aside from basic skins - would be real money skins? Would you still say that they have to make money? Be cause that's the ultimate goal, isn't it? So why are they in game for us to be acquired without real money?