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

[PseudoNewb.5468]

> @"crepuscular.9047" said:> unlike other MMOs, GW2 offers the options to trading in your liquid gold into gems, and there is no restriction on what items you can spend your gems on; so it's lost revenue for anet.> > If you decide to spend real money, by all means use real money, you are supporting anet to continue to pay their employees to continue to bring out new contents.> I'm in support of anet to keep GW2 going and for the many years to come, so I dont mind forking out $100-$300 annually since there's no subscription fee to begin with.> >

> > at the end of the day, **Vote with your Wallet**> _if you do appreciate the work anet devs put into the game, show a bit of appreciation and support by buying something small off gem store with real money_Lost revenue from gold to gems is reflected in the gem exchange rates (when gems not previously owned by another player are given the rate goes up). Unless Anet supplies the exchange with free gems to lower the rate, it doesn't look like Anet loose any revenue from the exchange anymore as the exchange rate seems to be quite stable.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

> @"Kheldorn.5123" said:

> Mounts in every game are made to be an obvious cashgrab. Why are you surprised?

 

Well, share with us how you think ANET should go about making money in order to keep the development going.

Its hardly a cashgrab when you have a choice of ways to purchase and you are not in fact forced to purchase anything because at the end of the day its purely a cosmetic item that makes no difference in your ability to play the game.

 

The bottom line is none of us know how much profit ANET makes on a mount skin priced at 400 gems, but it will be less if we decide to buy in bulk, as I am sure most players will do, me included. So if you don't want to acknowledge its a cosmetic collection of skin rather than a game of chance then you can take the premium option and buy the one of choice, but none of us know how much profit ANET make on a 1200 gem skin either. Individually of course they make more but over how many are sold in comparison to the, say 5 skins for 1800 gems.. its all about covering bases for the business. They take a risk putting anything out for sale, so yes they have to put a few carrots out there... but it's up to you to choose whether to take a bite of a carrot or not, and then decide which carrot you prefer.

 

Or would you prefer ANET to start charging a monthly sub instead?

[Mea.5491]

> @"Belorn.2659" said:

> > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > Gold sink?

>

> > @"crepuscular.9047" said:

> > unlike other MMOs, GW2 offers the options to trading in your liquid gold into gems, and there is no restriction on what items you can spend your gems on; so it's lost revenue for anet.

>

> > @"Mea.5491" said:

> > Convert Gold to Gems = get it without spending real money.........

>

> This myth needs to end. Anet do not sell gems for gold. Never have, never did.

> What Anet does is to have a market place where players can sell gems to other players, and anet takes a 40% cut. It is called *gold selling*, and unlike other MMOs Anet has created a legal venue for gold selling where they can tax it heavily. It is a good deal for everyone involved but its not lost revenue for anet.

>

> Player A buy gems for 21$.

> They put it in the gem store and and get 1.2k gold temporarily from the bank, and now there is 13.44$ worth of gems there after Anet tax.

> Player B buys the gems for the 1.2k gold that player A wanted, and put it into the bank and restore the balance sheet. They end up with the 13.44$ worth of gems that remained after taxes.

>

> Buying gems for gold nets Anet 140% revenue compared to just going to the store and buy it there. The bank always win, and they will get the money somehow. It is either from gold selling where you as a player work for hire in the game to other players, or through your credit card. One way or an other you are a revenue source for Anet.

>

> A bit upside of all this is that Anet has a direct incentive to go after illegal gold sellers since those are lost revenue. We the players get a better economy and safer game, and Anet get to have a monopoly on gold selling and tax it. People who want to farm gold and sell it to other players for gems can do it and buyers have a legit method to buy gold for money. Everyone wins. Lets just not pretend that its "lost revenue". The service to trade money for gold is the single biggest revenue source in the game for Anet and 40% tax is a huge one.

 

Doesn't change the fact that you can get Gem Store stuff with Gold.

[Abakk.9176]

I think it would be more profitable to make more and sell for less and set a few top designs aside for a higher price.

 

Also the 400 gems blind date i don't agree with. You should be able to see what you buy at all times. I'd buy some of those if i could actually chose.

 

 

 

[Dashingsteel.3410]

Anet's got to make money some way. This is a luxury item and not necessary to the game.

[Feanor.2358]

It's not something mandatory, you know. Think it's priced too high? Then don't buy. Simple.

Personally, I prefer the random draw discounted packs. I'll eventually buy all of the available skins and they'll cost me much less on average. But there are usually at least several skins per pack I actually like. If it was a single one? Yeah, I'd buy a selection license without giving it a second thought.

[Hevoskuuri.3891]

Like others have mentioned, mount skins are luxury items without any real convenience. 1200 gems allows you to skip the gamble if you want a specific skin, and that's ok in my book. If you want anything other than a vanilla mount, the 400-gem gamble is pretty cheap.

 

Maybe 1200 gems is a little overpriced (I'd prefer 800 or 1000) but then again, so are most things in the gem store IMO. Well, Anet needs the income to push out free LW episodes and cheap xpacs so I can't complain.

[juhani.5361]

Random aside: I'd pay 1200 gems to unlock all dye channels on the mounts I have.

[Danikat.8537]

I don't think there is a correct price, or even an ideal price, for cosmetic items in games. What's cheap for one person is too expensive for someone else - either because they can't afford as much or because they don't like the item as much. There's some mount skins I probably wouldn't use even if I got them free, so I wouldn't buy them at any price. Others I'd be happy to pay for. With gold - gems it gets even more complicated, I know I'm more willing to buy expensive things with gold because I don't farm it, I just get it while doing things I'd do anyway so gold is basically free for me.

 

1,200 gems is expensive to me. It's more than I've ever paid for a mount and almost exactly the (somewhat arbitrary) limit of £12 I set as the most I'd pay for a mount version of one of my favourite animals in another game. So for the right mount yes I'd pay it. But it would have to be one I _really_ like.

 

Although the main thing putting me off buying the new mount skins is that I've already got the branded pack and all the Istani ones. That gives me a pretty good selection and I'm not sure I'd use any new ones enough to justify it. Except maybe a beetle skin, but if I'm going to spend 1,200 for a beetle skin I may as well spend 2,000 for a pangolin...but then that really is expensive...

[Curunen.8729]

I don't agree with 1200, would prefer slightly lower at 1000 max (800 min).

 

However this won't stop me from buying one or two select licenses that I like - next time I log on I'm certainly going to buy the kourna jackrabbit first.

 

It's highly unlikely for me ever to want more than two or three mount skins from any of these packs that offer select licenses, so the random license packs may as well not exist for me.

 

[Rasimir.6239]

> @"Abakk.9176" said:

> Also the 400 gems blind date i don't agree with. You should be able to see what you buy at all times. I'd buy some of those if i could actually chose.

Why? There's people that enjoy playing the lottery. Why not give them the chance to do so? If you don't want to buy lottery tickets that's your choice, but if Anet can make money by giving other players something they enjoy, that sounds like a win-win to me.

 

[derd.6413]

Probably because some ppl buy (or at least partly) gems with gold

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @"Bloodstealer.5978" said:

> > @"Kheldorn.5123" said:

> > Mounts in every game are made to be an obvious cashgrab. Why are you surprised?

>

> *some words I didn't read*

 

I have no reason to share anything for free, you know. Anyway, I accept mounts are cashgrab, I knew when mounts were leaked that's how it's gonna be with skins for them. There is no way they gonna change it so why bother talking about it :)

[Zedek.8932]

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

First, this makes it more accessible for people with low income (or parents not allowing such things) to have less impressive but more affordable ones.

Secondly, high priced skins create a bit of a feel of luxury to them. I'm myself not so much in the current socialist thinking of "Let's all be equally poor". Here and there a nice thing to treat yourself is fine and boosts the income of this great game that it really deserves.

 

Also, let's be honest: Who wants or needs all of the skins? I could not find a single one that I'd like to replace my Springer with, even though they ideas are neat (like the lop-eared one). If I'd get a skin for Jerry, then it'd be one. I can't see people switching back and forth the skins that would require it to have them all.

 

Excelsior.

[Ashen.2907]

> @"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.

 

Your fact is not factual. All of the skins can acquired without spending money. There are zero (0) that require real money to be spent.

[Cyninja.2954]

> @"Mea.5491" said:

> > @"Belorn.2659" said:

> > > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > > Gold sink?

> >

> > > @"crepuscular.9047" said:

> > > unlike other MMOs, GW2 offers the options to trading in your liquid gold into gems, and there is no restriction on what items you can spend your gems on; so it's lost revenue for anet.

> >

> > > @"Mea.5491" said:

> > > Convert Gold to Gems = get it without spending real money.........

> >

> > This myth needs to end. Anet do not sell gems for gold. Never have, never did.

> > What Anet does is to have a market place where players can sell gems to other players, and anet takes a 40% cut. It is called *gold selling*, and unlike other MMOs Anet has created a legal venue for gold selling where they can tax it heavily. It is a good deal for everyone involved but its not lost revenue for anet.

> >

> > Player A buy gems for 21$.

> > They put it in the gem store and and get 1.2k gold temporarily from the bank, and now there is 13.44$ worth of gems there after Anet tax.

> > Player B buys the gems for the 1.2k gold that player A wanted, and put it into the bank and restore the balance sheet. They end up with the 13.44$ worth of gems that remained after taxes.

> >

> > Buying gems for gold nets Anet 140% revenue compared to just going to the store and buy it there. The bank always win, and they will get the money somehow. It is either from gold selling where you as a player work for hire in the game to other players, or through your credit card. One way or an other you are a revenue source for Anet.

> >

> > A bit upside of all this is that Anet has a direct incentive to go after illegal gold sellers since those are lost revenue. We the players get a better economy and safer game, and Anet get to have a monopoly on gold selling and tax it. People who want to farm gold and sell it to other players for gems can do it and buyers have a legit method to buy gold for money. Everyone wins. Lets just not pretend that its "lost revenue". The service to trade money for gold is the single biggest revenue source in the game for Anet and 40% tax is a huge one.

>

> Doesn't change the fact that you can get Gem Store stuff with Gold.

 

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).

[Belorn.2659]

> @"PseudoNewb.5468" said:

> Lost revenue from gold to gems is reflected in the gem exchange rates (when gems not previously owned by another player are given the rate goes up). Unless Anet supplies the exchange with free gems to lower the rate, it doesn't look like Anet loose any revenue from the exchange anymore as the exchange rate seems to be quite stable.

 

The economist and designer of the gem exchange system did write a bit on the topic during the time he was employed by Anet, and he claimed that all sold gems are were once bought (or given through achievements. credit: Cyninja.2954 ) by other players. The price is as he said purely a player based economy of sellers and buyers. How exactly that is translated to an algorithm that adjust price on the exchange is unknown, but given his academic background in economy it is likely similar to that of stock exchanges. The stock exchange don't create more stocks as prices goes up.

 

A mock-up algorithm could be like this: When a person sell 1 gem, put it in the store but increase the initial price by 20%. For everyday decrease it by 1%. If it sells when its above 100% the general prices goes up, if it doesn't then prices goes down. Only 1 gem is ever sold for every gem put in so no magic creation of gems by the exchange, but prices will fluctuate based on demand and supply. Since the initial price is fixed the seller of gems never loose any revenue, and thanks to taxes it gets very profitable in the long run regardless of the exchange prices.

 

The algorithm is likely much more complex than that, and the fact that they tax the transaction on both ends means there is a lot of room to influence and make the price more stable without the exchange going into red.

[LucianDK.8615]

You get far more value out of the random packs. I got the 4 skins in wanted in two packs. and trailblazer for beetle is a sleeper hit.

[maddoctor.2738]

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.

 

What I will never understand in this game is that there is no bulk gem price discount, even the worst companies out there (in terms of consumer friendliness) have it.

The current gem prices are as follows:

800 - 10$

1600 - 20$

2800 - 35$

4000 - 50$

8000 -100$

 

They should be like (not well-thought out numbers, just an example):

800 - 10$

1600 - 18$

2800 - 32$

4000 - 44$

8000 - 92$

 

It's really puzzling me how companies like Activision, EA and WB, that have very exploitative market practices at least got this right. I think the prices are fair, making the single mount skins cost double instead of triple wouldn't make much sense in my opinion, because that way there would be very little reason to buy the RNG ones, unless you like them all or something.

 

What I'd like to see is Arenanet doing something about the cash -> gems conversion, something that has never been touched in the past. Obviously the above discounts would only work when buying gems with cash and have absolutely no effect when you buy them with gold. Make your customers happy and introduce some discounts and I'm sure more people will start using their wallets.

[maddoctor.2738]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"Batel.9206" said:

>

> > However, I don't know ArenaNet's reasoning behind the prices being the way they are.

>

> [This is why](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/627768/#Comment_627768 "This is why")

>

>

 

Important part:

> What our data shows is that higher-priced flashy individual items can work, and lower-average-price-per-item bundles can work, but lower-priced individual items generally don’t generate meaningful revenue to support the game.

 

Those items "work" because I suspect lower-priced individual items are being bought with gold instead of gems. How to fix this is rather simple, offer better conversion rates (discounts) when using cash -> gems. Add some freaking seasonal discounts too, like "every August, with the anniversary of the game's release, your next gem purchase is 20% off, offer only lasts for a week or two.". That way they can keep their high prices to discourage players from buying those skins with gold, but make buying them with cash artificially "cheaper". There is a reason most retail stores offer discounts, and it's during the discount period that they make more profit. Only Arenanet doesn't like getting our cash.

[Turin.6921]

I find it overpriced but i do not mind. I would not spend money on this and will wait for bundles but if someone thinks its a fair price all the power to them. It is overpriced but not ridiculously overpriced to make the option non-viable.

 

As long as there are still good bundles with 400 gems a skin and there is a direct purchase that is not ridiculously overpriced alongside the exploitative rng for the licenses i am fine with it.

[Rasimir.6239]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> What I will never understand in this game is that there is no bulk gem price discount, even the worst companies out there (in terms of consumer friendliness) have it.

>

> It's really puzzling me how companies like Activision, EA and WB, that have very exploitative market practices at least got this right.

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.

 

> What I'd like to see is Arenanet doing something about the cash -> gems conversion, something that has never been touched in the past. Make your customers happy and introduce some discounts and I'm sure more people will start using their wallets.

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.

 

[Mea.5491]

> @"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-

[Danikat.8537]

> @"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.

>

> What I will never understand in this game is that there is no bulk gem price discount, even the worst companies out there (in terms of consumer friendliness) have it.

> The current gem prices are as follows:

> 800 - 10$

> 1600 - 20$

> 2800 - 35$

> 4000 - 50$

> 8000 -100$

>

> They should be like (not well-thought out numbers, just an example):

> 800 - 10$

> 1600 - 18$

> 2800 - 32$

> 4000 - 44$

> 8000 - 92$

>

> It's really puzzling me how companies like Activision, EA and WB, that have very exploitative market practices at least got this right. I think the prices are fair, making the single mount skins cost double instead of triple wouldn't make much sense in my opinion, because that way there would be very little reason to buy the RNG ones, unless you like them all or something.

>

> What I'd like to see is Arenanet doing something about the cash -> gems conversion, something that has never been touched in the past. Obviously the above discounts would only work when buying gems with cash and have absolutely no effect when you buy them with gold. Make your customers happy and introduce some discounts and I'm sure more people will start using their wallets.

 

According to one interpretation those discounts are also an exploitative marketing practice. It encourages people to buy more gems (or equivalent cash shop currency) than they currently need to get the discount and then it removes the psychological barrier of getting out your card and paying real money for more gems next time you want something, which means people are more likely to buy things they only sort-of want. In other words they spend those gems faster than they would if they were just buying what they need each time and end up buying more in the long run.

 

This is also why the bundles of cash shop currency you can buy rarely match the price of items exactly. How many times have people mentioned buying black lion keys with 'spare' gems from a purchase? If they buy 800 gems and use them to get a 700 gem item a lot of people will buy another 25 gems with gold and get a key rather than save the 100 gems to add to other 'left over' gems until they can get an item they want without buying more gems.

 

Of course for other people discounts on larger volumes of gems can lead to saving money in the long run, but even though I'm one of those people (I never buy extra stuff just to get rid of 'spare' currency, I'd rather keep it until I actually want something) I can't say I've ever missed it. In Elder Scrolls Online I'll always buy 5,500 crowns at a time even if I only need a few hundred (there are larger packs but the discount on them is barely more than the 5,500 pack and the prices get very expensive) and I have occasionally bought more when they were offering a sale, especially when it was 40% off. 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.

[Nightmare.1234]

The reason for the inflated gem store pricing is because anet allows gold to gems convertions, so they have to take into account the people that live on the game and farm gold ( make the population look good). If this wasnt the case prices would be lower so you would buy more. But they have to offset the fact people can get thier stuff for free as a gold sink. So others must be charged more so they keep profits high. I will prob just convert gold to cover half the cost so i only pay 600 gems for a mount. I dont like this system but it is what it is.