WvW Mount Skins: why a pack?

[Naxos.2503]

> @"Moira Shalaar.5620" said:

> > @"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.

 

Sure, I can explain how I use the term,

 

On my point "milking" characterise a cold and calculated monetization of feature, either by it's implementation (Player needs) or by it's timing (depending on when it's implemented), in a way you could call it a very cynical way to make money. Anet is a business, it's Job is to make money, therefore it is not ethically wrong for them to proceed as such. On another hand, I find it is a marketing fault, because the timing carries a negative look. The pack was released immediately after the feature, which makes it plain the feature was implemented with the main purpose of being monetized. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, but players dont really like that : the whole history of mounts since the announcement of Path of Fire was marked with players assuming mounts were implemented with the sole Reason of making money, and it was interpreted cynically, thus the decision to release the skinpack so soon after the core mount will reinforce that feeling. It's a PR flaw, not an unethical practice. It reminds people of bad feelings.

 

Indeed, all products are meant to be sold, but when a feature is released for free, it is best to nurture the desire for more, before attempting to sell an "upgrade". Had I been Anet, I would have waited just -1- extra Week, and I can guarantee there would have been threads asking for some new skins to be released, in which case, the pack's release carries far less negativity, it'll be interpreted mostly as answering a desire from the Community, which in my opinion is a much better PR move, as well as a better marketing move (since it doubles as Anet listening to player wishes and releasing their products accordingly). It cannot be done with all products of course, but in this particular case, it would have made sense, and would not have carried the same connotations : we're not privy to how long skins take to devellop, so two weeks could have been seen as a "post release content update". Instead if the skins are released too fast, it makes clear the development was concordant to the core feature, thus reinforcing the monetizing aspect. If I were to give it a pseudo similar example in the game industry, it would be games that release with day 1 DLCs, they're poorly regarded, because they're assumed to be cut content, specifically developped to be monetized. The concept of Cut Content dont exactly apply, but the negative connotation it carries does. I'm not sure the example is correctly applied, but I hope you'll understand what I mean by that. If I were to resume it, I'd say it's all a matter of timing. They released the pack too soon after releasing the core feature.

 

I hope that gives you a better understanding of what I was trying to say

[Moira Shalaar.5620]

> @"Naxos.2503" said:

> Sure, I can explain how I use the term,

>

> On my point "milking" characterise a cold and calculated monetization of feature, either by it's implementation (Player needs) or by it's timing (depending on when it's implemented), in a way you could call it a very cynical way to make money. Anet is a business, it's Job is to make money, therefore it is not ethically wrong for them to proceed as such. On another hand, I find it is a marketing fault, because the timing carries a negative look. The pack was released immediately after the feature, which makes it plain the feature was implemented with the main purpose of being monetized. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, but players dont really like that : the whole history of mounts since the announcement of Path of Fire was marked with players assuming mounts were implemented with the sole Reason of making money, and it was interpreted cynically, thus the decision to release the skinpack so soon after the core mount will reinforce that feeling. It's a PR flaw, not an unethical practice. It reminds people of bad feelings.

>

> Indeed, all products are meant to be sold, but when a feature is released for free, it is best to nurture the desire for more, before attempting to sell an "upgrade". Had I been Anet, I would have waited just -1- extra Week, and I can guarantee there would have been threads asking for some new skins to be released, in which case, the pack's release carries far less negativity, it'll be interpreted mostly as answering a desire from the Community, which in my opinion is a much better PR move, as well as a better marketing move (since it doubles as Anet listening to player wishes and releasing their products accordingly). It cannot be done with all products of course, but in this particular case, it would have made sense, and would not have carried the same connotations : we're not privy to how long skins take to devellop, so two weeks could have been seen as a "post release content update". Instead if the skins are released too fast, it makes clear the development was concordant to the core feature, thus reinforcing the monetizing aspect. If I were to give it a pseudo similar example in the game industry, it would be games that release with day 1 DLCs, they're poorly regarded, because they're assumed to be cut content, specifically developped to be monetized. The concept of Cut Content dont exactly apply, but the negative connotation it carries does. I'm not sure the example is correctly applied, but I hope you'll understand what I mean by that. If I were to resume it, I'd say it's all a matter of timing. They released the pack too soon after releasing the core feature.

>

> I hope that gives you a better understanding of what I was trying to say

 

Thank you very much for explaining your thinking for me. I appreciate you taking the time to lay it out in greater detail, that indeed does help me much better understand what you originally meant. I think your point about waiting for people to start to ask on the forums for skins is a nice touch, although to be honest if they had had a skin available for it the first day i would have bought it then on impulse. Now, I am thinking of holding out and seeing what convenience items show up on sale in March before committing that much to skins, but then personally I prefer convenience & QoL gemstone products. Again, thank you for your explanation.

[Susy.7529]

> @"Danikat.8537" said:

> > @"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.

 

The same thing applies to the 2000 gems pack, when it gets a discount, it'll still be cheaper than buying 2 discounted Selected Licenses.

[Leo G.4501]

> @"Naxos.2503" said:

> > @"Moira Shalaar.5620" said:

> > > @"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.

>

> Sure, I can explain how I use the term,

>

> On my point "milking" characterise a cold and calculated monetization of feature, either by it's implementation (Player needs) or by it's timing (depending on when it's implemented), in a way you could call it a very cynical way to make money. Anet is a business, it's Job is to make money, therefore it is not ethically wrong for them to proceed as such. On another hand, I find it is a marketing fault, because the timing carries a negative look. The pack was released immediately after the feature, which makes it plain the feature was implemented with the main purpose of being monetized. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, but players dont really like that : the whole history of mounts since the announcement of Path of Fire was marked with players assuming mounts were implemented with the sole Reason of making money, and it was interpreted cynically, thus the decision to release the skinpack so soon after the core mount will reinforce that feeling. It's a PR flaw, not an unethical practice. It reminds people of bad feelings.

>

> Indeed, all products are meant to be sold, but when a feature is released for free, it is best to nurture the desire for more, before attempting to sell an "upgrade". Had I been Anet, I would have waited just -1- extra Week, and I can guarantee there would have been threads asking for some new skins to be released, in which case, the pack's release carries far less negativity, it'll be interpreted mostly as answering a desire from the Community, which in my opinion is a much better PR move, as well as a better marketing move (since it doubles as Anet listening to player wishes and releasing their products accordingly). It cannot be done with all products of course, but in this particular case, it would have made sense, and would not have carried the same connotations : we're not privy to how long skins take to devellop, so two weeks could have been seen as a "post release content update". Instead if the skins are released too fast, it makes clear the development was concordant to the core feature, thus reinforcing the monetizing aspect. If I were to give it a pseudo similar example in the game industry, it would be games that release with day 1 DLCs, they're poorly regarded, because they're assumed to be cut content, specifically developped to be monetized. The concept of Cut Content dont exactly apply, but the negative connotation it carries does. I'm not sure the example is correctly applied, but I hope you'll understand what I mean by that. If I were to resume it, I'd say it's all a matter of timing. They released the pack too soon after releasing the core feature.

>

> I hope that gives you a better understanding of what I was trying to say

 

Perhaps I'm a cynic but i don't care much for being PR'ed to. Even through your explanation, you seem aware of it(PR)'s intent so while I can see the purpose to those that aren't aware or who put more value in image than in performance or convenience, what exactly do you gain from being unable to purchase the skins for an extra week? Maybe if I were in the marketing department and was being compensated for my forethought in such matters, but as a customer, it doesn't actually make a difference. Unless it won't be available this being out of sync with people's pay days, I'd have bought it then just as I'd buy it now or reversed if I didn't like the skins.

 

This is my own personal opinion though. The same PR approaches are also what keeps hot gem store items limited time. While it may get the unaware to spend more, it just stops me from buying things I want.

[Celsith.2753]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> At the end of the day, despite how disappointed you are, you'll find some way to get the gems for them. You wouldn't have bothered to get the mount if you weren't.

 

I've bought most of the pve skins over the months. I disagree with the way the wvw ones are packaged and have no intention of buying them. Don't assume you know what people will do.

I hope everyone unhappy with this is doing the same.

 

[Naxos.2503]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @"Naxos.2503" said:

> > > @"Moira Shalaar.5620" said:

> > > > @"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.

> >

> > Sure, I can explain how I use the term,

> >

> > On my point "milking" characterise a cold and calculated monetization of feature, either by it's implementation (Player needs) or by it's timing (depending on when it's implemented), in a way you could call it a very cynical way to make money. Anet is a business, it's Job is to make money, therefore it is not ethically wrong for them to proceed as such. On another hand, I find it is a marketing fault, because the timing carries a negative look. The pack was released immediately after the feature, which makes it plain the feature was implemented with the main purpose of being monetized. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, but players dont really like that : the whole history of mounts since the announcement of Path of Fire was marked with players assuming mounts were implemented with the sole Reason of making money, and it was interpreted cynically, thus the decision to release the skinpack so soon after the core mount will reinforce that feeling. It's a PR flaw, not an unethical practice. It reminds people of bad feelings.

> >

> > Indeed, all products are meant to be sold, but when a feature is released for free, it is best to nurture the desire for more, before attempting to sell an "upgrade". Had I been Anet, I would have waited just -1- extra Week, and I can guarantee there would have been threads asking for some new skins to be released, in which case, the pack's release carries far less negativity, it'll be interpreted mostly as answering a desire from the Community, which in my opinion is a much better PR move, as well as a better marketing move (since it doubles as Anet listening to player wishes and releasing their products accordingly). It cannot be done with all products of course, but in this particular case, it would have made sense, and would not have carried the same connotations : we're not privy to how long skins take to devellop, so two weeks could have been seen as a "post release content update". Instead if the skins are released too fast, it makes clear the development was concordant to the core feature, thus reinforcing the monetizing aspect. If I were to give it a pseudo similar example in the game industry, it would be games that release with day 1 DLCs, they're poorly regarded, because they're assumed to be cut content, specifically developped to be monetized. The concept of Cut Content dont exactly apply, but the negative connotation it carries does. I'm not sure the example is correctly applied, but I hope you'll understand what I mean by that. If I were to resume it, I'd say it's all a matter of timing. They released the pack too soon after releasing the core feature.

> >

> > I hope that gives you a better understanding of what I was trying to say

>

> Perhaps I'm a cynic but i don't care much for being PR'ed to. Even through your explanation, you seem aware of it(PR)'s intent so while I can see the purpose to those that aren't aware or who put more value in image than in performance or convenience, what exactly do you gain from being unable to purchase the skins for an extra week? Maybe if I were in the marketing department and was being compensated for my forethought in such matters, but as a customer, it doesn't actually make a difference. Unless it won't be available this being out of sync with people's pay days, I'd have bought it then just as I'd buy it now or reversed if I didn't like the skins.

>

> This is my own personal opinion though. The same PR approaches are also what keeps hot gem store items limited time. While it may get the unaware to spend more, it just stops me from buying things I want.

 

You're correct, I'm aware of the tactic, but in a simple manner, until recently (as recently of last year actually) I spent on the game out of goodwill and desire, and I did so often, mostly because while I knew the existence of the tactic, it didn't feel like that cold and mechanical sale we had now. The fact that I can now Notice it quite easily lowers my goodwill. I spent a lot of time studying the horrors of human history, so I learned to dismantle every situation and study it objectively, which is why I can describe the tactic without it turning like I'm against it. What I can however do, is notice is how smartly it is used : which in this case it was not used smartly, Something that in itself I find disappointing. Furthermore, For a long time before, I saw Anet as a fairly good balance in the industry when it came to monetization, and I've been noticing, disappointingly they are turning to more aggressive monetizing. Some wont care, which is their choice and is perfectly fine, for my part I'm a bit disappointed, because it translates to a change of attitude toward their Customers and playerbase.

 

People react differently to those tactics, in my case, the only thing that bothers me is that I noticed, which to me equals to a lack of care to disguise it, something that in my book doesn't translate well for the future. Not necessarily a "doom and gloom" opinion, let's call it a bad trend to start on. In a way, maintaining appearances means you care what your customers and playerbase think of you, either because their opinion matters to you, or because you prefer having their goodwill, rather than forcing their hand. Not doing so means you're coming forward as only in it for the money, which shifts the Relationship players have with the developers. One just have to look at the many messages of good wishes for all the developers from the playerbase to see what the playerbase thinks of Anet as a whole. Not caring what our view might be on quick monetization gives off the impression they dont really think too much about good will, so much as good bucks, which is disappointing, even if I might sound like an idealistic person to say so.