Would you buy mount skins if?

[Danikat.8537]

> @"Teratus.2859" said:

> No answer there for me..

>

> My answer is this.

> I think the price is fine for the random licences and I'm completely fine with buying a few of them each month until I get the mounts I want.

>

> However I am completely against the pricing for the 2000 gem deluxe mounts which are absurdly priced almost as much as an expansion pack... and the same price as multi pack mounts which offer several skins in once pack.

> **I consider those skins to be very exploitative** and I personally refuse to buy them because of that.

 

I completely understand (and agree with) saying that 2,000 gems is over priced for 1 skin, but I don't think it's accurate to call them exploitative.

 

It's completely clear up-front what you pay and what you get for your money, and it's something no one, including the people who do buy it, actually need. It doesn't do anything, it doesn't provide any benefits, it's purely cosmetic. Therefore I can't see how this can be considered exploitation. You pay your money and get exactly what you were shown, or you don't and you're not missing anything except looks.

 

Exploitative would be if it offered extra benefits so players felt they had to pay (say for example buying it unlocks that mount in WvW), or if it was an RNG box where you pay and there's a _chance_ you'll get the skin you really want, or one that's useless to you or nothing (but Anet's never been that bad - their RNG boxes always give _something_, it just might be something useless) and if you don't get it your only option is to give up or keep on paying.

 

It might seem like an irrelevant difference but I think it's important for us to be accurate about these things, because if every over priced or uninteresting item gets called exploitative then it becomes easier for Anet (and other players) to ignore that complaint and if/when actually exploitative items are added and someone complains everyone will just think "Here we go again, someone crying that they can't afford the new shiny".

[Teratus.2859]

> @"Danikat.8537" said:

> > @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > No answer there for me..

> >

> > My answer is this.

> > I think the price is fine for the random licences and I'm completely fine with buying a few of them each month until I get the mounts I want.

> >

> > However I am completely against the pricing for the 2000 gem deluxe mounts which are absurdly priced almost as much as an expansion pack... and the same price as multi pack mounts which offer several skins in once pack.

> > **I consider those skins to be very exploitative** and I personally refuse to buy them because of that.

>

> I completely understand (and agree with) saying that 2,000 gems is over priced for 1 skin, but I don't think it's accurate to call them exploitative.

>

> It's completely clear up-front what you pay and what you get for your money, and it's something no one, including the people who do buy it, actually need. It doesn't do anything, it doesn't provide any benefits, it's purely cosmetic. Therefore I can't see how this can be considered exploitation. You pay your money and get exactly what you were shown, or you don't and you're not missing anything except looks.

>

> Exploitative would be if it offered extra benefits so players felt they had to pay (say for example buying it unlocks that mount in WvW), or if it was an RNG box where you pay and there's a _chance_ you'll get the skin you really want, or one that's useless to you or nothing (but Anet's never been that bad - their RNG boxes always give _something_, it just might be something useless) and if you don't get it your only option is to give up or keep on paying.

>

> It might seem like an irrelevant difference but I think it's important for us to be accurate about these things, because if every over priced or uninteresting item gets called exploitative then it becomes easier for Anet (and other players) to ignore that complaint and if/when actually exploitative items are added and someone complains everyone will just think "Here we go again, someone crying that they can't afford the new shiny".

 

I ment exploitative in the way that Anet know a lot of people would buy it against their better judgement.. but yeah.. it probably was a poor choice of words on my part.

I'm not much of a conversationalist tbh

Bad at explaining myself and using the right words lol

[Ben K.6238]

I already do buy mount skins, so I don't have any problems with the price.

 

I'd buy more if there were more I liked, but you can't please everyone with every skin.

[Ashantara.8731]

Mount Packs are stupid. They force you do get all skins contained (of which most are not worth buying at all) for a price higher than if you bought a single [mount selection license](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Mount_license "mount selection license") for a specific skin of your choice. I have not bought a single mount pack yet and will never do so.

[Palador.2170]

I think the price is fine, IF they appeal to me enough.

 

My problem is that now I have two mounts that don't match any of the theme sets they sell. I passed on the Shiverpeak set, even though I liked it, because I couldn't match my Roller to it. Now that I have a Warclaw too, sets like that hold even less appeal.

[Biff.5312]

Well your list isn't exactly exhaustive. Anyway I'd agree with 1 and 2. I'd buy individual skins I chose for 800 gems for sure - 1200 is a bit much.

I'd buy packs of skins for a single mount, again if they were affordable. Like the 2000 gems for Warclaw. If they made that with a variety of skins for other mounts I'd probably buy those. One of the worst things about the random skin license is that for some people they don't even have the mount they get a skin for.

[Biff.5312]

> @"Ashantara.8731" said:

> Mount Packs are stupid. They force you do get all skins contained (of which most are not worth buying at all) for a price higher than if you bought a single [mount selection license](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Mount_license "mount selection license") for a specific skin of your choice. I have not bought a single mount pack yet and will never do so.

 

Actually this makes little sense. A mount pack gives you 5 skins for 2000 gems. Individual skins are 1200 gems if you chose them. So the pack is cheaper than even 2 skins. If you only use 2 it is therefor a good deal. Maybe you can't find 2 skins in any pack that you'd use, but almost everyone else can, and it is therefor not 'stupid'.

 

Additionally, if you were to buy 5 random skins at the same cost there's no assurance you'd get ANY you like, so even if you only like one of the skins in the pack it's not particularly worse than buying the random ones at 400 gems each.

[MoriMoriMori.5349]

In my opinion, the point behind their policies is not only about selling more skins (or other vanity items). Otherwise you would see those readily available 24/7 - yet you rarely see, say, Shrine Guardian skin for Jackal being sold as a separate item. It may be they try to maintain some semblance of status and uniqueness bound to them (especially when so much ppl are sitting on thousands of gold which can be converted to gems and spent in the shop), so they timegate direct access to specific items like this. Like, from their point of view, it doesn't matter whether one player will acquire a skin by spending, say, 20$ on it, or 4 players will acquire it, by spending 5$ each (20$ in total) - but the former is still better for sales, as the fewer players have it, the more exclusive it feels. On the other hand, it may seem a bit unfair that somebody who can't afford spending that much on a skin won't get it, but as it's just cosmetics, who cares. If you really like it, you'll find a way. Otherwise, too bad, you're out of luck. May be find a better job IRL instead.

[InvaGir.9158]

Its virtual items and cosmetics no less that gives you no advantage over anybody so stop being greedy about it, ArenaNet need to make money to support the game existence and pay salaries for their employees and yes I will justify their prices even if it was 50$ for a package of skins.

They have every right to set any price they want and you as Individuals has the ability that every responsible person to use discretion and decide whether to buy the package or not.

 

Some games sell other uselessness for hundreds of dollars and only for a short time.

The items you get in this game are permanent and account bound.

Be thankful for that =\

 

P.S: You should also be thankful they bring back old skins as well and put discouts every now and then even though they DON'T have to!

 

 

[Elothar.4382]

Two factors drove my vote. First, I am a big fan of purchasing what I want for a fair price. I don't particularly like "bundling" of various products or services where I have to purchase all of it to get what want. Second, I don't tend to switch mount skins (or glider skins, for that matter). So, unless the price was relatively cheap (in the 400-600 gem range), I'm not likely to buy any others. I have skins that I like now... no real reason to buy more unless the price is right.

[Tiviana.2650]

I think they are too high. Its not like buying a mount, these are just cosmetic overlays to mounts we already have. Now if they sold actual new mounts then i can see higher prices.

[DiabolicalHamSandwich.8756]

I would buy more mount skins, if they were priced individually by skin quality. Like they should've been from the get go imo. Wait.... correction. I would start to buy mount skins. Granted, the RNG route probably paid out a lot more. But I want no part of it.

[MoriMoriMori.5349]

> @"Tiviana.2650" said:

> I think they are too high. Its not like buying a mount, these are just cosmetic overlays to mounts we already have. Now if they sold actual new mounts then i can see higher prices.

 

I think that's the point. It's better one player buying it for 20$, than 4 players buying it for 5$ each - assuming 3 of those 4 would never bought it for 20$. Though it's still the same amount of money for Anet, the skin is now in possession of 4 times more players, what lowers its value as exclusive item, and makes it less desirable purchase for others.

 

There is also buyer's satisfaction aspect. The more items you can afford with your 20$, the less valuable each item feels. I.e., funnily, but by driving prices up, and making most pretty items available only a few times per year, they may force those who buy it to feel more happy on acquiring it. Thus subjective value of item is increased, without Anet investing in it anything at all.

[Lilyanna.9361]

People that cried about mounts when they were first getting their skins cried too much. They caused a riot that caused Anet to panic because people felt they didn't get enough choice and wanted to put their lootboxes agenda on the company.

 

People said they wanted to pay twice the price of they could choose their mount skin. Here ya are folks. You got what you wanted. Stings doesn't it? Well that's how some players felt when the whole forums wanted to scream about the lack of 'choice' and 'rng'. They bit the hand that gave them something potentially good. Keep the prices the same, so people can remember what happens when you scream at game developers too much.

 

I knew this was gonna happen and told people, but now look where we are. Asking for change, yet again.

[Joseph.6578]

> @"Absconditus.6804" said:

> I would buy more mount skins if I had the option to pick and choose my skins without any randomness, alongside a bundle for multiple skins for a better price. E.g., 600 Gems for 1 skin, 2000 Gems for bundle. I am somewhat fine with "premium" skins being 2000 Gems, though I would like to see the price dropped to maybe 1600?

 

Absolutely. I have all 7 mounts, have looked each time I gained one, and have bought zero skins. Price is not the issue. I want to buy the skin I want for the mount I want. Otherwise, I will never buy.

 

 

[crepuscular.9047]

posted before...

 

still waiting for class based mount, and I want this for my engi

 


 

and the idling animation, it would spin around spraying bullets everywhere and firing off rockets

[Susy.7529]

It lacks the option "I would never buy mount skins with gems no matter what."

[notebene.3190]

I bought the Wintersday pack, because I liked them all, and then one extra Griffon. The Griffon was a license where you could pick the one you wanted from a set, and it was on sale. That worked for me. There are 2, maybe 3, skins from the very first pack that I like that I'll never be able to buy how I got that single Griffon (sp) skin, and I get why that is, and while a little sad, it is what it is. I would never ask to have access to those unless they figured out a way to reimburse anyone who bought the entire pack just for the few skins they wanted. Wouldn't be fair to them.

 

The WvW mount that looks like a cat looks interesting, but you can't buy that one alone either.

 

I do wish they had a way to preview how you'd look riding them. I think they should create a stables instance where you can go ride any mount in the instance to check out how it looks and how it dyes, etc.

[Danikat.8537]

> @"Lilyanna.9361" said:

> People that cried about mounts when they were first getting their skins cried too much. They caused a riot that caused Anet to panic because people felt they didn't get enough choice and wanted to put their lootboxes agenda on the company.

>

> People said they wanted to pay twice the price of they could choose their mount skin. Here ya are folks. You got what you wanted. Stings doesn't it? Well that's how some players felt when the whole forums wanted to scream about the lack of 'choice' and 'rng'. They bit the hand that gave them something potentially good. Keep the prices the same, so people can remember what happens when you scream at game developers too much.

>

> I knew this was gonna happen and told people, but now look where we are. Asking for change, yet again.

 

And what if we think we got exactly what we wanted, albeit in a very round-about way?

 

I much, much prefer paying more for a select licence which enables me to know exactly what I'm buying right from the start and exactly how much it will cost - rather than buying a random licence where I have absolutely no control and may be stuck with something I never wanted.

 

Only downside of the current system for me is there are some skins I like which aren't available from select licences (like the recent Warclaw skins) and that I only buy select licences when they're on sale (so they cost 720 gems instead of 1200) but I'm fine with that because it gives me time to think about which skins I want, and it's not like I need any of them right away.

[Cragga the Eighty Third.60]

Bought the Branded pack because awesomeness.

Bought four premium skins, and kicked myself for spending that much once the novelty had worn off.

But what I love best are the adopted mount packs. I think I got about half of the first one (and won't buy more because there's too many to make the RNG worth it now, and too many uninteresting ones.) I got almost all of the second set, and ended up with all of the third and fourth sets, mostly buying one at a time or 5 at a time. Next time I am planning to have the gems to just buy the full pack all at once, so hoping the next collection is fabulous and worth it.

 

Unfortunately, I now have more awesome mount skins than I have characters to ride on them..and don't really like changing up my mounts regularly, I prefer to give a character a permanent mount and name it.

 

Clearly, I am okay with the prices.