WvW Mount Skins: why a pack?

[Tekoneiric.6817]

What they should have done is released the first skins as a two pack for warclaw and roller beetle with the skins missing from the other packs. Like branded ones first, then slowly release the other pack skins like spooky, winter, etc. I think it would have been worth 1000 gems for the two.

[finkle.9513]

seen as the warclaw mount is literally only good for wvw, and nobody plays wvw... go check it now que time is gone, its quite in game now most have got the mount lol.

Would have been better fixing/ improving and reworking the whole of wvw, before trying to make money off its back, to me just a false economy.

[Keefe.3821]

I actually bought gems in anticipation of the skins but there is no way I'm buying more gems for some half assed pack. Anet, stop being so damn greedy.

[Keefe.3821]

> @"finkle.9513" said:

> seen as the warclaw mount is literally only good for wvw, and nobody plays wvw... go check it now que time is gone, its quite in game now most have got the mount lol.

> Would have been better fixing/ improving and reworking the whole of wvw, before trying to make money off its back, to me just a false economy.

Not sure what server you're on but mine has ques in multiple borderlands all the time. Also, you can use the warclaw mount outside of wvw.

[Danikat.8537]

Having seen the fire skin in-game and dyed I'm now re-thinking the pack. I've not been a fan of any of the previous fire mount skins but this one is less...dramatic, and with the right dyes I think it can look good. I'm still not sure I'd use it, which is why I'm still not getting the pack, but if I decide I will use it that would make it worthwhile to buy them, because then I'd use 3/5.

[Turkeyspit.3965]

> @"Keefe.3821" said:

> I actually bought gems in anticipation of the skins but there is no way I'm buying more gems for some half assed pack. Anet, stop being so kitten greedy.

 

Just like all the other mount packs, this one will eventually come back on sale for 1600gems. Maybe by then if I've squirrelled away enough gems that I don't need, I'll take the plunge. For now, I'd rather buy more character slots and shared inventory slots with my resources.

[kratan.4619]

Thank you Anet for a pack of non-RNG skins, will be purchasing this pack tonight.

[Randulf.7614]

> @"Danikat.8537" said:

> Having seen the fire skin in-game and dyed I'm now re-thinking the pack. I've not been a fan of any of the previous fire mount skins but this one is less...dramatic, and with the right dyes I think it can look good. I'm still not sure I'd use it, which is why I'm still not getting the pack, but if I decide I will use it that would make it worthwhile to buy them, because then I'd use 3/5.

 

I've found it quite tough to dye actually. The metal plating rarely matches what dye you use and largely stays some kind of grey and the flames, well sometimes they dye well and sometimes yellow or orange is green...

[Lady Azjurai.3078]

I like a few (see, 2) of the skins, but not enough to shell out 2k gems - yet. Will see what future offerings bring, patience is a virtue and all that.

[Absconditus.6804]

Super disappointed in most of the skins, and even more in ArenaNet for releasing them solely as a bundle instead of giving us the option to buy the pack for 2000 Gems to get a "good deal" or to pay, e.g., 600 Gems for one skin, basically totaling the value of the 5 skins to 3000 gems. It would have created perceived value for the pack which may appeal to bigger (and smaller) spenders, and the smaller spenders would have had an easier to swallow price to buy into. To me, it's an easy skip in its current release and I've spent my fair share of money on this game over the years.

 

Personally, I'd probably buy one or two at a 600 Gems price point, as I don't want most of these skins, plus they're only for one single mount. Obviously, you get less money out of me if I purchase one or two skins over the bundle, but when I'm not buying the bundle either, you're getting _no_ sales where you could have had some. Also, I'm sure some people would convert Gold to Gems, which isn't directly profits, but that drives Gems to Gold prices up too, making it appealing for people to get Gems to convert to Gold as well, so it's not all bad when people convert their Gold to get Gem Store items, right? Evidently from this very topic, on the other side of the spectrum there are also people who will buy the pack because they _can't_ buy the specific skin they want, but how many are there that will do that, over how many there are that are now not engaging in any transactions, which would otherwise have at least picked up one skin? Those who bought the bundle thus far would have been highly likely to at least purchase one skin, if not more or the entire bundle due to the perceived value of saving 1000 Gems in the example of 600 Gems for one skin, 2000 Gems for all. There's practically no way for anyone to realistically get that data unless you can time travel and re-do the same exact same release twice in two different ways. You can do projections and look at past sales data, but that is not this current sales offering. It's also a bit different than past sales offerings, as it's new skins for a new mount for a mode which has so far not really been dipped into for monetized content the same way say PvE has been.

 

As I see it, I can't exactly use 5 skins at once, so to me, it's terrible value. I also find it to be a terrible business decision by ArenaNet's team, regardless of what data trends they sit on. It's terrible for us consumers, as it can- and is seen as unfriendly gauging of their players which creates resentment, bad word-of-mouth marketing and can hurt a customers willingness to engage in transactions in the future (and not acknowledging that this effect can grow within your customers is only thinking short-term sales and not long-term growth gains from positively pleased customers which will be more and more willing to open their wallets rather than the opposite). I can't imagine this bundle selling well. I barely see people without the default Warclaw. Maybe I'm wrong on the latter. Why do you have to make it so hard to financially support you a little bit here and there though, ArenaNet? Why does everything need to be big purchases? Guild Wars 2 is very much Fashion Wars 2. Skins are a big deal, far more than chairs.

[JustANoob.2798]

I keep wondering how long people will voice the same complaint before Anet pays attention and realizes that if they gave us a better deal they would sell a lot more skins and make more money. There are so many people that really want one or two skins but refuse to spend money on ones that they don't want just to get the one or two that they want.

 

How about it Anet, are you going to finally figure out that you are costing yourselves sales and therefore not making any where near the money that you could?

[Danikat.8537]

> @"Randulf.7614" said:

> > @"Danikat.8537" said:

> > Having seen the fire skin in-game and dyed I'm now re-thinking the pack. I've not been a fan of any of the previous fire mount skins but this one is less...dramatic, and with the right dyes I think it can look good. I'm still not sure I'd use it, which is why I'm still not getting the pack, but if I decide I will use it that would make it worthwhile to buy them, because then I'd use 3/5.

>

> I've found it quite tough to dye actually. The metal plating rarely matches what dye you use and largely stays some kind of grey and the flames, well sometimes they dye well and sometimes yellow or orange is green...

 

Ah ok. That's good for me to know. I've seen a few in-game which looked good, but if there's only a few dye schemes which will work (and they may not fit with my characters colour schemes) it's back to not being useful for me.

[Deimos.4263]

I think the way to rationalize this for 2000 gems is if you consider one of the skins to be a "premium" mount skin, and the rest as freebies. Is that the case here? Debatable. I'm taking a pass on this one.

[Miko.4158]

I'd have blind bagged one just to make a change, but the skins aren't good enough to buy separately, wheres the 2K giant peacock?

the last 2 look the same.

which makes the pack abit of a swindle.

looks a bit last gasp and doesn't match the way the others have been sold.

I don't think this was a great plan by anet and I was happy to pump 800 gold to them as they are skint.

 

[Memoranda.9386]

> @"Naxos.2503" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Naxos.2503" said:

> > > To be honest, I was a bit sad to see how quickly it seemed like that they jumped to monetize this. I mean, sure, everyone saw it coming, but still, darn. Could have spared our feelings a bit there Anet, I'd not have raised a concern if it had been another Week or so from now, but in this particular case, I really feel like we're getting milked, as "justified" as you may be for trying to recoup your losses, that's hardly the customer's fault.

> > >

> > > It is -NOT- a pleasant feeling. Loss of respect from me on that point.

> >

> > Why are you shocked? Not knocking Anet here, but you were in the WvW forums where people were stating it was simply to monetize the mount. (Via skins)

> >

>

> It's not exactly shock, as I mentionned, everyone saw it coming. What I find disturbing is how -fast- they got on to it, exactly a Week after release. It feels mechanical, and completely self serving, which I find extremely disappointing and cold. It's all in the execution and timing, and that's not hard to think about from a marketing and Community perspective. They're passing off as particularly cold and calculating with that choice.

>

 

Not to you specifically, however, given development lead times the skins were made the same time as the Warclaw itself.

 

All the mounts were released this way. There was no "rush" to monetize the mount when this has been standard from day 1 of mounts existing.

 

Further, this was all planned out before the lay-offs were announced, again, due to development lead times and release schedules.

 

Sure the optics "look bad", I suppose, but only if you choose to view it as such and not in the grand scheme of development and release cycles planned months ahead of time.

[Substance E.4852]

> @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> > @"Randulf.7614" said:

> >

> > 

> >

> > You can dye 3 parts of the armour and the fur

> >

> > > @"XenesisII.1540" said:

> > > > @"Randulf.7614" said:

> > > > 

> > > >

> > > > They are some cool skins albeit 2 are a bit samey. I can this one being made into Battle Cat a lot though

> > >

> > > Can you dye the skin green and armor orange to get a scuffed battlecat look?

> >

> >

>

> Is it just me, or from that angle doesn't it look like you're riding a hyena?

 

Nah it's not just you, it's a genuinely bad mount. They gave it too small a head for the mesh so the neck needs to be much too long for a cat and it just ends up looking really weird.

[Moira Shalaar.5620]

> @"Naxos.2503" said:

> To be honest, I was a bit sad to see how quickly it seemed like that they jumped to monetize this. I mean, sure, everyone saw it coming, but still, darn. Could have spared our feelings a bit there Anet, I'd not have raised a concern if it had been another Week or so from now, but in this particular case, I really feel like we're getting milked, as "justified" as you may be for trying to recoup your losses, that's hardly the customer's fault.

 

> @"Loosmaster.8263" said:

> We all knew from the WvW this was just another money grab.

 

You both seem very unhappy with this mount pack and desire for Anet to do something differently Yet, calling something a "money grab" and being "milked" are two indirect and only slightly veiled ways of accusing Anet of being unethical in their business practices, and unethical business practices are enacted by unethical people. Perhaps that is how you genuinely feel about them. I personally have not met a single person employed by Anet so I cannot comment on their characters, but I prefer to take a more optimistic view until I meet someone and discover otherwise. But at least in my own experience, insulting people is an ineffective way to motivate them to change in ways I might consider positive.

 

"I don't like it, you hurt my feelings" while legitimate opinions, are unhelpful in pointing them in a direction you believe to be a better direction. Might I suggest a more reasoned and thought out approach to disagreeing with Anet and this particular product?

 

I don't know where either of you may be from, so some of this may well be redundant and unnecessary, but for some this may be new information. Within the US, where Anet's studios are located, businesses fall into two classifications: NonProfit Organizations (Often called NPOs) and for profit businesses. Both must acquire money in order to continue to operate. The advantage to an NPO is that often its overhead (the overall cost of doing business) is low and they only need to make enough revenue to meet their expenses and achieve their purposes. However Anet is a for profit business which means their very business model is for the purpose of making profit. You may have ethical objections to businesses in this classification, but that is a much larger topic for perhaps a different venue. Whether you do have issues with this model, or do not, the situation is such that Anet works within this business model, so they need to make revenue.

 

Right now that revenue can broadly be broken again into two categories: High Price single purchases (i.e. expansions) and lower priced smaller products intended for more frequent purchases (i.e. gem store products). Anet does not have a third revenue stream. Since at the moment they do not have any expansions to release immediately, their business depends upon enough gemstone sales to continue to operate. As recent events have shown us, gem store sales have been insufficient for them to continue operations as they have been, which ultimately led to the large layoffs a few weeks ago. Again there are many opinions on what different contributing factors brought them to that point, but in a basic, uncomplicated sense, it was a lack of income to expense ratio. You may personally support the game with buying expansions, gems, both or neither, but regardless, if Anet is unable to change that income to expense ratio sufficiently, the game that we all play will come to its end sooner than later.

 

Releasing the warclaw and skins does indeed provide another opportunity for players to spend cash on gems either to buy the pack or to buy gold allowing others to buy the pack with gold to gems conversions. Quite a few here have expressed concerns about the pricing/value of this particular product and their suggestions on what they believe to be a more reasonable pricing model may be helpful to Anet to help them assess the value that the community puts onto this recent release.

 

Since you seem to not like something or maybe even anything about this product, perhaps you might consider suggesting other products or ways that you believe to be viable, ethical approaches for Anet to continue making sufficient profit that we can continue playing and enjoying this game.

 

TLDR: being respectful and making well reasoned suggestions may do more for getting changes you want.

 

Cheers!

[Loosmaster.8263]

> @"Moira Shalaar.5620" said:

> > @"Naxos.2503" said:

> > To be honest, I was a bit sad to see how quickly it seemed like that they jumped to monetize this. I mean, sure, everyone saw it coming, but still, darn. Could have spared our feelings a bit there Anet, I'd not have raised a concern if it had been another Week or so from now, but in this particular case, I really feel like we're getting milked, as "justified" as you may be for trying to recoup your losses, that's hardly the customer's fault.

>

> > @"Loosmaster.8263" said:

> > We all knew from the WvW this was just another money grab.

>

> You both seem very unhappy with this mount pack and desire for Anet to do something differently Yet, calling something a "money grab" and being "milked" are two indirect and only slightly veiled ways of accusing Anet of being unethical in their business practices, and unethical business practices are enacted by unethical people. Perhaps that is how you genuinely feel about them. I personally have not met a single person employed by Anet so I cannot comment on their characters, but I prefer to take a more optimistic view until I meet someone and discover otherwise. But at least in my own experience, insulting people is an ineffective way to motivate them to change in ways I might consider positive.

>

> "I don't like it, you hurt my feelings" while legitimate opinions, are unhelpful in pointing them in a direction you believe to be a better direction. Might I suggest a more reasoned and thought out approach to disagreeing with Anet and this particular product?

>

> I don't know where either of you may be from, so some of this may well be redundant and unnecessary, but for some this may be new information. Within the US, where Anet's studios are located, businesses fall into two classifications: NonProfit Organizations (Often called NPOs) and for profit businesses. Both must acquire money in order to continue to operate. The advantage to an NPO is that often its overhead (the overall cost of doing business) is low and they only need to make enough revenue to meet their expenses and achieve their purposes. However Anet is a for profit business which means their very business model is for the purpose of making profit. You may have ethical objections to businesses in this classification, but that is a much larger topic for perhaps a different venue. Whether you do have issues with this model, or do not, the situation is such that Anet works within this business model, so they need to make revenue.

>

> Right now that revenue can broadly be broken again into two categories: High Price single purchases (i.e. expansions) and lower priced smaller products intended for more frequent purchases (i.e. gem store products). Anet does not have a third revenue stream. Since at the moment they do not have any expansions to release immediately, their business depends upon enough gemstone sales to continue to operate. As recent events have shown us, gem store sales have been insufficient for them to continue operations as they have been, which ultimately led to the large layoffs a few weeks ago. Again there are many opinions on what different contributing factors brought them to that point, but in a basic, uncomplicated sense, it was a lack of income to expense ratio. You may personally support the game with buying expansions, gems, both or neither, but regardless, if Anet is unable to change that income to expense ratio sufficiently, the game that we all play will come to its end sooner than later.

>

> Releasing the warclaw and skins does indeed provide another opportunity for players to spend cash on gems either to buy the pack or to buy gold allowing others to buy the pack with gold to gems conversions. Quite a few here have expressed concerns about the pricing/value of this particular product and their suggestions on what they believe to be a more reasonable pricing model may be helpful to Anet to help them assess the value that the community puts onto this recent release.

>

> Since you seem to not like something or maybe even anything about this product, perhaps you might consider suggesting other products or ways that you believe to be viable, ethical approaches for Anet to continue making sufficient profit that we can continue playing and enjoying this game.

>

> TLDR: being respectful and making well reasoned suggestions may do more for getting changes you want.

>

> Cheers!

 

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/categories/wvw I emplore you to read this entire subforum on recommendations and you might see where the "hate" comes from...

[Moira Shalaar.5620]

> @"Loosmaster.8263" said:

> https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/categories/wvw I emplore you to read this entire subforum on recommendations and you might see where the "hate" comes from...

 

I am quite familiar with that sub-forum and have read several of the threads but by no means all, nor do I have the time to invest in reading every single comment. That does not change a single thing in what I said. Anet needs to make a profit. If you don't like the pack fine, take the time to make productive suggestions rather than simply calling the company greedy.

[Susy.7529]

You ask "why"? It's pretty obvious to me...,$€¥£

[Naxos.2503]

> @"Moira Shalaar.5620" said:

> > @"Loosmaster.8263" said:

> > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/categories/wvw I emplore you to read this entire subforum on recommendations and you might see where the "hate" comes from...

>

> I am quite familiar with that sub-forum and have read several of the threads but by no means all, nor do I have the time to invest in reading every single comment. That does not change a single thing in what I said. Anet needs to make a profit. If you don't like the pack fine, take the time to make productive suggestions rather than simply calling the company greedy.

 

Erm, No really, read my original post carefully, and you'll see that what I'm stating are my own take on their decision as well as giving a proper solution : Waiting another Week before going through the pack's release to minimize that type of feeling. I've been Nothing but honest and respectful in regard with what I said. It feels like "milking" because the desire to make money off a newly implemented feature was not disguised. I never told them Not to do it, I told them to do it with the impression it'll give their players in mind. I havent lambasted them for it, I've plainly stated that it was a cold and mechanical way to go about it, which is a fact. It's pragmatic. My reaction to it is that I Noticed how cold and mechanical that felt, and I thus it disappointed me, which I stated. There is no "attack" in this.

 

A TL, DR version to my whole point would be : We knew it was going to happen, but it would have been nicer if it was not made obvious by how fast it was implemented.

[Susy.7529]

> @"Danikat.8537" said:

> I'm disappointed in this too. I'd buy two of them (one plain one and then either the branded or fire skin), but I don't want 5 and I don't want to pay 1,000 gems per skin.

>

> As a result I'm going to wait and see if the next adoption licence pack includes warclaw skins (and then wait for it to go on sale because I don't buy select licences at full price either).

 

Well according to previous prices (1200 gems for a Selected License), that would have costed more (1200*2=2400>2000).

[slpr.2647]

Only skin I'm going to buy, will be if they come out with a Siberian/Bengal Tiger, a decent looking one. And if they do, I dont care how much it costs. Until then, I'm happy with the default skin

[Danikat.8537]

> @"Susy.7529" said:

> > @"Danikat.8537" said:

> > I'm disappointed in this too. I'd buy two of them (one plain one and then either the branded or fire skin), but I don't want 5 and I don't want to pay 1,000 gems per skin.

> >

> > As a result I'm going to wait and see if the next adoption licence pack includes warclaw skins (and then wait for it to go on sale because I don't buy select licences at full price either).

>

> Well according to previous prices (1200 gems for a Selected License), that would have costed more (1200*2=2400>2000).

 

And that's why I don't buy select licences at full price either. I've only ever bought them when they were reduced to 720 gems.

[Moira Shalaar.5620]

> @"Naxos.2503" said:

> Erm, No really, read my original post carefully, and you'll see that what I'm stating are my own take on their decision as well as giving a proper solution : Waiting another Week before going through the pack's release to minimize that type of feeling. I've been Nothing but honest and respectful in regard with what I said. It feels like "milking" because the desire to make money off a newly implemented feature was not disguised. I never told them Not to do it, I told them to do it with the impression it'll give their players in mind. I havent lambasted them for it, I've plainly stated that it was a cold and mechanical way to go about it, which is a fact. It's pragmatic. My reaction to it is that I Noticed how cold and mechanical that felt, and I thus it disappointed me, which I stated. There is no "attack" in this.

>

> A TL, DR version to my whole point would be : We knew it was going to happen, but it would have been nicer if it was not made obvious by how fast it was implemented.

 

Perhaps I was incorrect then to include you with the person that quoted you and replied to you. Please help me to understand a few things then.

 

1. do you view the characterization "milking" to be other than unethical? If so, can you explain to me so that I can understand how your usage does not indicate unethical practices? If you do indeed view the characterization of "milking" as unethical, then once again you are indirectly declaring that Anet is unethical, how is that not an attack on their character either individually or collectively?

2. How would you suggest that they "disguise" an intent to make money off a new feature? Each and every product they release on the gem store is for the express and explicit purpose of enticing us to spend our discretionary money with them instead of somewhere else. Or do you consider the additional week of waiting that you suggest would be sufficient to soften the wholly accurate impression that Anet is attempting to make money from us?

 

I am not trying to be offensive to any, just to encourage a different approach to disagreeing with them.