1200 gems = 1 mount Skin (do you agree?)

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Rasimir.6239" said:

> Actually they didn't. With the way Anet currently sells gems, I can buy however many gems I want at any time and always know I'm getting the full value of gems, no matter how much money I spend at any given time. If anything, the way your prefered model works to me is exploiting the user, as buying anything less than the highest priced gem pack at any given time will leave you with the feeling that you didn't get "full value" for your money. If spending $10 now and $10 next week will give me less gems than spending $20 up front, it'll always make me feel cheated. Personally, I'm less inclined to spend any money at all that way.

 

You are missing the point of bulk discounts, the highest gem pack is also very expensive, it's already at 100$. You feel "cheated" because you like the current system and you buy gems in small quantities, that won't change. However, those that can pay more gems upfront (even if there is nothing that they currently like) will benefit heavily from it. You will either get the highest gem pack, paying 92$ each time (a very high upfront price) or you choose to pay any smaller amount, for lower upfront price, but less efficiency. The key here is to allow those that can pay more, to benefit from it.

 

> I think you'll find not just me but a lot more people spending less money or at least be less happy if you introduce discounts for bulk purchases (see explanation above). If anything's exploitative, this is.

 

Can't see why someone that is willing to pay 100$ get the same benefit as someone who pays 10$.

 

If the bulk discount is not to your liking, what about seasonal discounts instead?

[Randulf.7614]

If they insist on keeping the price, i would prefer to see the method of acquisition fairer

 

- remove the rng option. It has no positive reason to exist

- Remove them from pack licences altogether

- Buy them direct from the mount panel. This combined with the above option would not only simplify the process, but make it much easier for incoming players to purchase skins instead of having yo wait for a pack to return when it isnt clear that is how the system works.

- keep them in stock always

 

If the system was streamlined and less messy, it would help

[lokh.2695]

You missed the "I don't bother" option.

The prices are as they are and we, as customers, can decide if we are offered enough value to justify the price. If the skin is worth to you the 1200gem(sticking to gems as not everyone lives in america and not everyone pais with dollars), it's worth it and you'll pay it. If it isn't you shouldn't. Vote with you wallet instead of demanding that prices cater to your "needs". I put need in quotaions, because there is no need for a skin. Your Jackal will still port, your griffon will still fly, your springer wil still jump no matter how they look.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"Danikat.8537" said:

> It encourages people to buy more gems (or equivalent cash shop currency) than they currently need to get the discount

 

That's the whole point yes. Another way of achieving this is by offering sales on gems, instead of sales on items. Instead of "Glider A is 20% off this week", you get "Your next gem purchase this week is 20% off". I get it that many dislike the bulk discounts, it's only one option, if it's not a good one, move on and find a better one. What I personally want, is better incentive to spend my cash on gems, no amount of gem store items will work. It's the cash -> gem conversion that will make me spend cash one way or another.

 

> But all it means is I think of £29.99 for 5,500 (or £0.54 per 100 crowns) as the 'default' price just like I think of £8.50 for 800 gems as the default in GW2. It doesn't actually feel like a saving, it just means it's not worth buying the smaller packs.

 

Which means, for players like you who chase that discount on every purchase, making this change would allow you to get the same amount of gems, with a lower price, right?

[aswedishtiger.7320]

> @"SmirkDog.3160" said:

> If they actually had skins unlockable through playing and not just only gem store items, I wouldn't care as much. But the fact that there's zero (0) you can obtain without spending money is pretty scummy.

>

> People can say "well just don't buy it", but cosmetic items or skins make the game more enjoyable, whether they're gem store ones or not. Devs that make and sell skins and don't put any in the game itself know exactly what they're doing.

 

 

"zero you can obtain without spending money is pretty scummy"

 

the gold -> gem transfer option says Hello

 

because that options exists not sure why you're crying

 

you want scummy business practices with ACTUAL ZERO ways to obtain amazing items THAT AFFECT GAMEPLAY (not cosmetic)

 

Load up BDO and tell me how fast you uninstall it. For you to call GW2 scummy for a mount skin is shivering me triggers dude

[Belorn.2659]

> @"Mea.5491" said:

> > @"Cyninja.2954" said:

> > Actually it does. Not only are the implications vastly different, but going about balancing and designing around either scenario is vastly different.

> >

> > You not understanding the difference or not caring about it does not change this.

> >

> > A.) Arenanet provides a platform on which players can exchange gold and gems between each other. It's a currency exchange which also has a tax on both transactions.

> >

> > B.) gems do not get created out of thin air (except those granted for achievement points on a 1 time basis per account). They must be bought by another player

> >

> > C.) gold gets introduced into the economy via in game interaction

> >

> > The only revenue Arenanet gains from this is people buying gems for real life money. Please try to comprehend this. The tax is both a drain on in game gold as well as a deterrent to prevent price manipulation. (it's also not 40% but close to 27.7% since the tax is 15% both ways).

>

> It's obvious that Anet only gets a profit for Gems bought with real money (duh) and of course there will be a tax... But I still like this system because I can't always buy Gems with real money. -shrugs-

 

I understand that when there is a intermediate that it is easy to not see, but when a player buys gems and put it in the exchange then those bought gems are profit for anet. When a player take 20$ of their own real money and buy gems, then put it in the exchange and get gold, then those gems in the exchange made Anet 20$ in profit of real money. Every bought gem in the exchange only exist because a player first spent real money on it.

 

The exchange is just a trading post. When you buy a weapon, let say Eternity from the TP, it was first crafted by an other player. Anet is not the seller of any item on the trading post. Trading in Guild Wars 2 is only player to player, and that include when gems trade hand.

 

Imagine you are a gold seller and farm gold to sell for money. As you know that is not permitted in the game. The gem exchange allow you however to sell gold to other players in exchange for gems. The only catch is that Anet will tax it, and that you can't turn gems back into real money.

[Tasida.4085]

I never use real cash for virtual but I do trade gold for gems......It all supports the game I love. I wait until gem/gold ratio is 400/105 or less and buy lots of gems ;). I know others use real cash which in turn lets me support the game as well....the prices are fine.

[Ayakaru.6583]

They told us or was a compromise to keep them affordable.

If not for this they would be all 1600 or 2000 gems a piece.

 

So not much of a discussion of you ask me.

Luckily the best, or rather, most developed mounts are sold separately

[Lahmia.2193]

341g currently. I'd say that is a more than justified price for a shiny skin.

[Ashantara.8731]

I was really upset last night when I saw that ANet had decided to ignore previous criticism on the mount skin prices. I, too, would be okay with 700-800 Gems each, but _this_, _again_?

 

I ended up relying on my luck and spent far less than if I had bought the 5 skins I wanted out of the 15 directly for 1,200 Gems each. Even less than if I had bought all 15. (I got 4 out of the 5, and that's fine.) I don't know if I will participate in this sort of gambling again...

 

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> The reason they are expensive is because you can get them with gold.

> 1200 gems = 15$ but also 346 gold, which is "nothing" for many players.

> [...]

 

I wish it was an accurate conversion from USD to EUR. I end up paying more than a U.S. American because of this.

 

> @"Zedek.8932" said:

> Also, let's be honest: Who wants or needs all of the skins?

 

You are actually right. :+1: Unfortunately, some are "irresistable", and the whole RNG thing is quite addictive. I have thought about it and will try to restrain myself in the future. (Already managed to do so years ago on another game that has _tons_ of market skins from crates and thus much more RNG gambling than GW2.)

[MMAI.5892]

> @"Zedek.8932" said:

> They should price their skins accordingly to the effort they went into.

 

They can't. Anet's revenue model is one that depends heavily on the cash shop in order to fund game dev and overhead. Therefore, nothing we buy in the cash/gem shop will ever be based solely on the development and production of that item. Secondly, while there will definitely be some variance in time spent/assets created between 'plainer' and flashier skins, this amount likely disappears pretty quickly by virtue of units sold and the fact that each unit has minimal inherent production cost since they are digital items. That we also have a gold -> gems conversion also complicates the issue. If, for example, two out of every three mounts are obtained with gems bought with gold vs. cash, then they have to be priced higher, in all likelihood, to meet desired revenue lines.

 

Like all systems, this has it's benefits and not. People with more time than money can farm gold in game to get the items they want. People who have the disposable income and can't/don't want to farm can still get the same items.

 

I, personally, would rather see the guaranteed mount unlock priced around 800-900 gems. At this point I have enough mount skins that I'm more likely to spend 1600-1800 gems on the two skins I really want versus risking rng or paying 2400 gems for two skins. I suspect that might be a place a lot of people are hitting and, unfortunately, that's exactly why the premium skins will stay 2K and the guaranteeds are 1200 - people are more likely to start spending less on mount skins overall.

 

 

 

 

[Crab Fear.1624]

how many other popular games without subscription allow you to farm game gold and exchange it for currency you can buy with a credit card?

 

Play some and pay some and suddenly 1200 gems aint so bad for lookin smexy

[Ayrilana.1396]

Looks like the consensus is leaning towards the pricing being just fine.

[Danikat.8537]

> @"MMAI.5892" said:

> > @"Zedek.8932" said:

> > They should price their skins accordingly to the effort they went into.

>

> They can't. Anet's revenue model is one that depends heavily on the cash shop in order to fund game dev and overhead. Therefore, nothing we buy in the cash/gem shop will ever be based solely on the development and production of that item. Secondly, while there will definitely be some variance in time spent/assets created between 'plainer' and flashier skins, this amount likely disappears pretty quickly by virtue of units sold and the fact that each unit has minimal inherent production cost since they are digital items. That we also have a gold -> gems conversion also complicates the issue. If, for example, two out of every three mounts are obtained with gems bought with gold vs. cash, then they have to be priced higher, in all likelihood, to meet desired revenue lines.

 

Good point.

 

It also might end up looking totally illogical to players. For example I suspect the space raptor was easier to create than the snake raptor because the space texture already existed so it was 'just' a matter of applying it to the model, but as far as I'm aware the snake skin pattern is unique to the raptor, so someone had to create that one from scratch.

 

But if they priced the space raptor at 600 gems (for example) and the snake one at 1000 gems I'm sure a lot of players would say that's completely backwards and the 'premium' skin with the special effects should cost more.

 

[Turkeyspit.3965]

The OP's post is misleading though, as you don't have to pay 1200 gems for 1 mount skin, you can get them at 400gems each, if you're willing to gamble or you don't mind collecting them all.

 

What really should spark the conversation though, is why skins like the Shrine Guardian and the Grand Lion Griffon skin cost 2000 gems, and aren't nor likely will ever be available via the adoption license at 400 gems. True, many got the Shrine Guardian via BLC, but I still think that's a pretty high price to pay for a single skin, especially since we've recently seen mount packs (containing 5 skins) for the same price.

[MMAI.5892]

> @"Danikat.8537" said:

> > @"MMAI.5892" said:

> > > @"Zedek.8932" said:

> > > They should price their skins accordingly to the effort they went into.

> >

> > They can't. Anet's revenue model is one that depends heavily on the cash shop in order to fund game dev and overhead. Therefore, nothing we buy in the cash/gem shop will ever be based solely on the development and production of that item. Secondly, while there will definitely be some variance in time spent/assets created between 'plainer' and flashier skins, this amount likely disappears pretty quickly by virtue of units sold and the fact that each unit has minimal inherent production cost since they are digital items. That we also have a gold -> gems conversion also complicates the issue. If, for example, two out of every three mounts are obtained with gems bought with gold vs. cash, then they have to be priced higher, in all likelihood, to meet desired revenue lines.

>

> Good point.

>

> It also might end up looking totally illogical to players. For example I suspect the space raptor was easier to create than the snake raptor because the space texture already existed so it was 'just' a matter of applying it to the model, but as far as I'm aware the snake skin pattern is unique to the raptor, so someone had to create that one from scratch.

>

> But if they priced the space raptor at 600 gems (for example) and the snake one at 1000 gems I'm sure a lot of players would say that's completely backwards and the 'premium' skin with the special effects should cost more.

>

 

Yep, the reuse of assets and the subjective view of 'what looks good', makes pricing them individually a more difficult proposition. I suspect they discovered some of these issues along with people buying less skins overtime with the gliders.

[Kapax.3801]

Briefly, summarizing all the comments that are in accordance with the price: Buying gems with real money is stupid, better farming gold without ceasing and change it for gems.

Those who buy gems with real money then are those harmed by having to buy an item with "inflation" because if it is not with high prices, it would be very easy to obtain it with gold in the game.

Then we return to something that is discussed since 2012: the gem store conditions the economy within the game and the gold of the game conditions the gem store.

[Jahroots.6791]

Back when they released the first set that was entirely RNG loads of people said that they would happily pay 1000 gems+ to choose a skin, and Anet obliged.

 

For what it's worth, I'd be happier if the gem cost reflected the 'prestige' of each skin. Those trippy, celestial looking mounts cost the same as the basic ones that are little more than extra dye channels (and I'm an extra dye channels > celestial trippiness kinda guy).

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @"Ashantara.8731" said:

> Unfortunately, some are "irresistable", and the whole RNG thing is quite addictive.

 

This is why gaming companies are winning with their gambling exploitations.

[Khailyn.6248]

It is a little expensive but not as expensive as say a mount skin in WoW which are usually around 25 dollars. There were 15 mount skins to get randomly and I only wanted 2-3. So rather than paying over 5000 gems for a bunch of mounts I didnt want, I dropped 2400 on 2 beetles. Compared to the alternative I saved some gems. However I feel mount skins should be 1000 gems at most, and I much prefer to buy them in sets (like spooky). As others have said, they have no gameplay affect, I buy gem store stuff once in a great while in lieu of not having a sub fee like I would in other MMOs plus it helps fun more FREE content (like living world and holiday events) so it imo is a necessary evil.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @"Khailyn.6248" said:

> It is a little expensive but not as expensive as say a mount skin in WoW which are usually around 25 dollars. There were 15 mount skins to get randomly and I only wanted 2-3. So rather than paying over 5000 gems for a bunch of mounts I didnt want, I dropped 2400 on 2 beetles. Compared to the alternative I saved some gems. However I feel mount skins should be 1000 gems at most, and I much prefer to buy them in sets (like spooky). As others have said, they have no gameplay affect, I buy gem store stuff once in a great while in lieu of not having a sub fee like I would in other MMOs plus it helps fun more FREE content (like living world and holiday events) so it imo is a necessary evil.

 

Real problem with these licenses is the fact that Anet is stacking multiple exploitative mechanics with them. They are not only RNG but also time limited with no communicated schedule of availability. This shows how desperate they are for money.

[Khailyn.6248]

> @"Kheldorn.5123" said:

> > @"Khailyn.6248" said:

> > It is a little expensive but not as expensive as say a mount skin in WoW which are usually around 25 dollars. There were 15 mount skins to get randomly and I only wanted 2-3. So rather than paying over 5000 gems for a bunch of mounts I didnt want, I dropped 2400 on 2 beetles. Compared to the alternative I saved some gems. However I feel mount skins should be 1000 gems at most, and I much prefer to buy them in sets (like spooky). As others have said, they have no gameplay affect, I buy gem store stuff once in a great while in lieu of not having a sub fee like I would in other MMOs plus it helps fun more FREE content (like living world and holiday events) so it imo is a necessary evil.

>

> Real problem with these licenses is the fact that Anet is stacking multiple exploitative mechanics with them. They are not only RNG but also time limited with no communicated schedule of availability. This shows how desperate they are for money.

 

Yea, I went with the license that I could choose which mount I wanted b/c I hate RNG and my luck frankly is quite bad. The randomness of which items on the gem store appear has been something that has annoyed me for many years. Sure it may be a successful financial tactic (artificial scarcity) , it has imo always felt a bit manipulative.

[Rauderi.8706]

I look at them on the same level as outfits. 700 gems.

Then the RNG tickets can be 250 gems each.

[Malediktus.9250]

No, most of these reskins arent even worth 400 gems

[ugrakarma.9416]

traditionally in mmos, shiny mounts are super expensive, I admire they gift griffon almost free, since 300g is easily farmable in this game. in other mmos, the griffon equivalent or any kind of "flying dragon" is usually the supreme mount, locked behind the insane grind/quests, or huge amount of money.

 

since i see excessive shiny mounts as a form of visual pollution, im in favor that remain expensive.