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

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Kheldorn.5123" said:

> 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.

 

Nothing there is factually accurate except that items in the gem shop with no communicated schedule of availability. That's not new; it's always been the case.

 

Further, it's always been intended that the gem shop generate the bulk of revenue for the game. (The addition of expansions was because the gem shop wasn't efficient enough.) There's nothing "desperate" about making the gem shop do the job for which it was designed.

 

Further, every single MountFit introduced, except the first set, is available without RNG. 1200 gems for standard, 2000 for premium. The cost of buying in bulk is 400 gems per MountFit, or less. And, we can choose to roll the dice, too, if we want. But there is no longer any need if one just wants some specific skins.

 

People can dislike the cost, regardless of whether they understand the reasons for it. But the RNG is no longer the main mechanic for acquiring MountFits.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

> @"Kheldorn.5123" said:

> > @"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 :)

 

So you make a brash comment to call ANET cashgrabbers ...but you dont wish to offer alternatives to ... or basically you have nothing to qualify your casgrab statement.

Players asked for an option to purchase a skin of choice rather than playing a game of chance to get it. Anet have done just that and balanced the price again the odds of getting any specific skin from a random pot. It is not a casgrab if you are offered the options players asked for... it is definitely a business trying to cover their bases.

They take a risk each time they develop something for the store so they have to cover bases or guess what if they don't turn a profit we don't get anymore nice things.

 

But your the one who made the comment so you must if thought it was worth talking about then so why not now.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

> @"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.

 

Why do you make such claims.. desperate for money.. really, I see the store as a means to keep the game moving onwards as long as its financially viable. How else do you think GW2 is funded outside of an expansion every few years or more.

Should they then be charging subscriptions?

Should they begin charging for LS updates?

Should they take away all the nice things from the game like bank storage, inventory storage, crafting licence, mounts etc etc.. and make them all buy only rather than given or collectable.

 

One thing you seem to forget to mention in your continual downer on ANET is that actually no one has to spend a dime of actual money , they can earn enough gold in game and then exchange for gems. If they miss the item this time round it will be back soon enough. As for mount adoption licences I am pretty sure they were available for quite some time first time round. The only ones that had short shelf life were the 2000 gem 1 off skins.. which actually I also think is too high, but that's the thing … I am able to make a conscious decision whether I feel it is value for money or not and decide to buy or not to buy. It's easy, it's cosmetic fluff that makes no difference to our gameplay... where is the exploitive mechanic you speak of when you are in control of your own decisions.

[jbrother.1340]

> @"Kapax.3801" said:

> I recently returned to the game and I find this, 1200 gems to select a mount to taste, while a random mount costs 400 gems (but eventually you'll end up spending more gems)

> Basically it has the price of 3 mounts (400x3 = 1200 = 15 $) 15 dollars for a skins seems excessive when the armor skins cost less than that (700 gems, less than 10 dollars).

> A correct price for me would be between 700-800 gems (the cost of 2 mounts)

> I never agreed with the Loot boxes, but I knew it was a way for them to also earn some money, but putting prices a bit inflated is not the answer either.

> I would like that in the next set skins to mounts think a little better at this. And if it is possible to abandon the idea of Loot boxes.

> After all, people who want to help in this game by buying gems end up discouraged when they do these things.

> Do not misunderstand, Guild Wars 2 is a very good MMO, but sometimes certain attitudes of companies end up discouraging the people who support the game.

>

> And what do other people think, do you agree with the cost of the Mounts Skins?

 

It does not matter at all if people agree or disagree.

 

what good do these polls do? Is anyone actually looking at the tiny cross section of players that vote? Does ANET even bother looking? I know if it was me and I saw "POLL" I would normally skip it as a moderator. Is that how they are treating these?

[SmirkDog.3160]

> @"Mea.5491" 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.

>

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

 

I don't think you understand. That's not unlockable through playing. I meant like from an achievement, doing a dungeon, raid, etc. It's not about the 'not spending money' part, it's the fact that I can only get a mount skin through the gem store, no matter how I pay for it. And if you seriously expect every player to be able to afford the ludicrous gold to gems ratio without playing every day for multiple hours, you must be daft.

 

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> 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.

 

That refers to in-game money too. Pay attention.

[Lost Dimension.9014]

I just wish they just make 100 gems = 1 US dollar. That is all I am asking for.

[Danikat.8537]

> @"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.

 

We don't know yet that they are time limited. The first adoption licences were removed, but they were also extremely unpopular because of being pure-RNG. They haven't removed the Istani ones yet (and even if they do they've been up for 5 months which is way too long to fit impulse buying, which is the usual reasons for limited-time sales) so it might be that they're planning to keep these licences up indefinitely.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @"Bloodstealer.5978" said:

> *some more irrelevant stuff*

 

When first license was released I offered solutions. There is no reason to offer more, they are not interested in reading them as enough whales buy skins now to justify their decisions.

[Ashantara.8731]

> @"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.

 

I don't play WoW but remember a colleague talking about mounts in WoW. So I have to ask: Aren't those 25 USD for _mounts_ and not just mere cosmetic skins?? Because that's a huge difference there.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

> @"Danikat.8537" said:

> > @"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.

>

> We don't know yet that they are time limited. The first adoption licences were removed, but they were also extremely unpopular because of being pure-RNG. They haven't removed the Istani ones yet (and even if they do they've been up for 5 months which is way too long to fit impulse buying, which is the usual reasons for limited-time sales) so it might be that they're planning to keep these licences up indefinitely.

 

No way, eventually there will be too many licenses in the store. Just like everything else, they are on rotation.

[Bloodstealer.5978]

> @"Kheldorn.5123" said:

> > @"Bloodstealer.5978" said:

> > *some more irrelevant stuff*

>

> When first license was released I offered solutions. There is no reason to offer more, they are not interested in reading them as enough whales buy skins now to justify their decisions.

 

Irrelevant stuff.. because you have no answer to what is said.. therefore anything anyone else says is irrelevant..

So far all you do is name call, blow downers on ANET because they choose to sell stuff in an effort to fund the game onward and shout irrelevance when your countered..

I think I get it, you want stuff cheap.. actually iirc you said you don't even play GW2 anymore, so why does this subject actually bother you anyway?

[miraude.2107]

> @"Ashantara.8731" 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.

>

> I don't play WvW but remember a colleague talking about mounts in WvW. So I have to ask: Aren't those 25 USD for _mounts_ and not just mere cosmetic skins?? Because that's a huge difference there.

 

Yes and no. Say we take a mount like the Celestial Steed. It's skeleton is identical to a mount obtainable in game called Invincible. The Imperial Quilen that you get for the Mists of Pandaria is a reskin of the Winged Guardian that was introduced a few builds earlier. Others like Warforged Nightmare, a $30 mount, is a reskin of the Death Knights' class mount. The only reason it's $30 and not $25 is the fact that you get a bonus item that you can put down that gives others a duration buff that changes their mounts to look like it. Yet, we have mounts like the Enchanted Fey Dragon that had a unique skin and skeleton at the time (before Warlords) that was considered truly 'unique'. So yes, most are cosmetic skins and no, every once in a while they throw a real mount in there.

[Scar.1793]

Hopefully this game’s cashshop won’t become like APB Reloaded’s

[Balsa.3951]

game needs money also they are just cosmetic. Dont get how anyone feel he MUST have them at a certain price. Anet could put a Ultima Legendary Skin in the game for 1 billion Gems more power to them if they sell it.

 

Beside that the basic mounts are good looking already so its not like other games who try shame u into buy skins

[Plautze.6290]

> @"jbrother.1340" said:

> It does not matter at all if people agree or disagree.

>

> what good do these polls do? Is anyone actually looking at the tiny cross section of players that vote? Does ANET even bother looking? I know if it was me and I saw "POLL" I would normally skip it as a moderator. Is that how they are treating these?

 

I guess, sparking up a discussion that heats up over its three-day-course, creates two wholly mutually exclusive oppinions and then finally confirms Godwin's law?

 

[Yannir.4132]

As always, there's people that buy what they need, and then there's the people that buy what they want. Just like some people buy expensive clothing, or overpriced cars. Premium items cost money, and are seen as overpriced by the general public. Nothing new here. The only difference is customers of clothing stores don't feel as entitled as gamers do, and don't deem themselves worthy of dictating what the store prices should be. Just because it's digital doesn't mean it's free to make. Somebody designed it, and their work doesn't come free. If you don't like the design, that's on you. You don't buy clothes you don't like either, do you?

[Aeon.4583]

I don't know if it is fine price, or not. But one thing that bothers me. [Original adoptation license](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Mount_Adoption_License "Original adoptation license") not present in gemstore. And it has no 'Select' version of it. It's not fair for those people whos looking to unlock original mount skins. First: you can't, Second: you won't be able to select one of originals, only random unlock.

 

I am myself looking to buy one of Original skins for each mount. Except for raptor and beetle.

[Karaha.3290]

1200 Gems are 300-350 gold atm. 400 Gems -> 110g for a random skin. That's absolutely okay imo.

[Mea.5491]

> @"SmirkDog.3160" said:

> That's not unlockable through playing. ... And if you seriously expect every player to be able to afford the ludicrous gold to gems ratio without playing every day for multiple hours

 

If you want unlockable things, you should play an MMO with monthly sub. GW2 has no monthly sub but they have to make money somehow. If they allowed us to unlock some stuff for free, many people would stick with the free stuff and never buy anything. Anet is already generous because they let us unlock living world episodes for free. There's ESO for example, they lock their new content (DLCs) behind sub... People who play GW2 often forget how lucky we are and yet we demand more free stuff. It's sad. :/

 

Actually, even only ONE hour of farming in Istan or SW gets you around 20 Gold OR some people do the Fractal dailies, I heard those are fast and pay well too. If you get 20 Gold/day and spend your monthly Laurels wisely, you can get a nice amount of Gold every month. You can turn it into Gems when the prices are lower. Also, you don't have to buy EVERYTHING. There are months when I don't buy anything from the Gem Store because I don't like the items. Save up your Gold for items you truly want and don't waste it on random things.

[mtpelion.4562]

I'm fine with that price. The people who care enough about what their mounts look like to spend real money on them are the people who so generously allow me to not pay anything every month but still play as much GW2 as I want.

 

Cosmetics have to be expensive, or else we'll start having to pay for essentials.

[Game of Bones.8975]

If you look at the price of mount skins vs armor or weapon skins, they are cheaper.

 

Armor and weapon skins can only be used by a limited number of characters as long as you have the race and profession in your stable of characters. You may only have one character per armor category or focus on melee and don't touch bows, pistols, or rifles. You are would be paying for skins that have an extremely limited use.

 

Mount skins can be used by any character, race, or profession. Sounds like a bargain to me.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"Kapax.3801" said:

> Do not misunderstand, Guild Wars 2 is a very good MMO, but sometimes certain attitudes of companies end up discouraging the people who support the game.

>

Exactly why i'll never buy anything from mount adoption or the "deluxe" mounts. And why i've stopped buying gems with cash.

All i've seen from Arena Net since PoF released tells me, and this is my opinion, that with all the moves into Amazon Games, they bled out too much talent, and are unable to keep the quality levels that they used to be able to hit.

Mount skins are a considerable price hike compared to other items in the gemstore, even though 2017 was probably their best year to date financially, mount skins outside the mount packs are 2-3 times more expensive than any other cosmetic gemstore item.

You can't really have an unbiased argument in favor of making mounts that expensive. I mean if i have to weigh buying a bundle with an outfit, a glider, a backpack, and some QoL items vs a single mount skin at the same price, i'll never buy the mount. It's just way less value for their price.

And even if you compare a mount adoption license mount with a Branded mount, Branded looks better than most of those, with the exception of the "carrot" mounts. There's always a few outstanding skins to drive people into spending the excessive amount of gems, but the average quality is lower than in most mount packs.

 

Couple that with a worse living world, continued crippling balance, and i'm out of reasons to spend money on GW2. If they announced a new expansion for next month i wouldn't buy it for more than 10€.

 

[Randulf.7614]

It is interesting - I wonder if their metrics indicate that although players seem willing overall to pay higher prices for mounts (well for other items, they've not tested lower prices on mounts), is the increasing price structure is putting a lot of players off buying gems? I know I've dried up my monthly spend. Think I've bought gems twice in the last year. It could well be that players like myself aren't numerous enough to impact their strategy, but knowing from experience how most companies read only what they want from metrics, it does make me wonder.

[Rasta.2371]

> @"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_How much of the money goes to nc-soft and how much to anet studio

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

> @"Rasta.2371" said:> > @"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_> > How much of the money goes to nc-soft and how much to anet studioWhat difference would that make? Would you deny ArenaNet revenue just to spite NCSoft? Should NCSoft not have supported ArenaNet for those 5 years whilst creating GW2? Should NCSoft, which wholly owns ArenaNet, not share in their revenue?