I don't understand Arenanet's philosophy on making money off the gemstore.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Wildon.7618" said:

> To all the comments about the gem conversion meaning they don't make money, I thought that in order for players to purchase gems for gold another player had to sell gems to the exchange for gold. Wouldn't the transaction fee's would mean that purchasing an item through gold should earn them more money than if it was just purchased straight with gems. Is that not the way that the gem exchange works?

>

Not quite.

 

Say I want to buy an outfit (800 gems), but I don't have US$10 that I can spend on the game. On the other hand, Ernestine has disposable income she can plunk down and is happy to buy 2000 gems a month to support the game, even if she doesn't spend them all. Occasionally, because she has little time to play, she'll convert some gems into gold.

 

So when I convert my ~300 gold to 800 gems, I might be getting the eight hundred she sold for under 200 gold.

 

The net result is that ANet is US$10 richer (from Ernestine's initial outlay), but not $20 richer as it would be if there were no exchange for me to buy gems...and I still wanted the outfit.

The other impact: the economy is 100 gold poorer, which helps keep inflation at bay (one of the reasons why there are transaction fees).

 

tl;dr no, the transaction fees don't mean ANet earns more cash; it could mean that they earn less _from the gem shop_

(there are other reasons for having the exchange, though).

 

 

> To comment on the subject of the thread though, there is only 1 skin that I really want for the warclaw, I also feel same as the OP in that I don't want to buy the bundle to get all of the other skins that I dislike. I would gladly pay 1000 or even 1500 gems for just the single skin that I want though. Might be strange, but I just don't like buying things that I have no intention of using:P

You're not alone. But you also aren't ANet's target market for this particular bundle. (Neither am I for that matter.)

 

****

Mind you: in ANet's shoes, even if I were convinced by my microtransaction experts that bundles like this are a good thing for the bottom line, I still would choose a different order of release. I'd start with the most expensive and attractive premium skin (at an initial discount), then release the random selection sets, and only release the bundle last. That would anchor people's expectations at the high end and make the bundle look especially attractive (4 skins for less than the cost of one! such a deal!). But then again, I'm not in the same business, so ... I'm hoping they know what they are doing.

 

[Wildon.7618]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> Say I want to buy an outfit (800 gems), but I don't have US$10 that I can spend on the game. On the other hand, Ernestine has disposable income she can plunk down and is happy to buy 2000 gems a month to support the game, even if she doesn't spend them all. Occasionally, because she has little time to play, she'll convert some gems into gold.

 

Ahh, so it's basically just a gold drain rather than a gem drain. Makes sense.

 

What I would question though, would Ernestine in your example keep purchasing that 2000 gems every month if she did not have anything to spend them on and just kept stockpiling more and more? If she was unable to convert the extra gems to gold, she might stop purchasing more once she has lets say 10,000 gems in the bank. And there is no guarantee that the player converting gold to gems would purchase gems if the exchange was not available (I know I have friends who won't spend a dime on a game regardless of how much they want something, but they will grind like mad for a currency exchange system). In this scenario the gem exchange does still earn them an increased profit over not having the exchange.

 

I know I am one of the people that will sometimes buy gems to convert to gold to let me get some shinies when I have a limited playtime. For me it isn't a case of me having too many gems that I want to liquidate, but it's a case of me wanting to purchase something that I lack the gold for. So if the option was not there, all other factors being equal, I would have spent less money on the game than I have. It really does make for an interesting question that I'm sure the people making these games have spent a lot of time and money trying to answer so they can make the most money:P

 

Although one thing I would really get behind would be a monthly subscription option for the game. Make it something you subscribe to for $15 a month and get 1200 gems and a few small extras to spice it up added to your account every month, lets say a black lion key and some transmutation charges for an example off the top of my head. Nothing too crazy, but would be a nice way for me to auto budget my spending and over time get a nice stockpile of gems built up. I also know that I am far more likely to purchase something like this mount bundle if I just happen to have a few thousand gems sitting on my account than I am to specifically purchase gems just to buy the bundle. Not to mention if I am just a few gems short I am far more willing to toss an extra $10 into the gem store to top off my gems and get the new shiny than I am to buy the whole 2000 gems at once. That would be their best method to get me to purchase something like the mount pack anyways:)

[Zet.9130]

I really don't have any answers on how to make everyone happy. I do have questions that I hope Anet has answered. I've found that as we see more DR of drops, creep on the amount of RNG, salvage rate adjustments and convoluted collections masquerading as content, I found myself more and more dissatisfied with the game. Not saying I'm going to rage quit but I have pretty much quit spending RL coin on the game.

 

My main question is has Anet factored customer goodwill in their decision making process? From my view as a player since launch is that Anet has decide to burn through original players and hopes to convert F2P players as the new income stream. I've resigned myself that GW2 would not be the game I had hoped it would be. I've tried a few other MMOs and come back, I'm still having fun and for now will continue to play - who know I may finally get a precursor drop.

[Deimos.4263]

To be honest I don't understand it either, but I'm tired of being angry about it.

 

We have to assume they know what they're doing to maximize their revenue...or will figure it out. If you're not happy with the way things are being presented, don't buy them. They'll adjust.

[AlexxxDelta.1806]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Substance E.4852" said:

> > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > > @"Eloc Freidon.5692" said:

> > > > Really wish this time they would have let you buy the skins individually for 400 Gems each.

> > > They will never sell MountFits at a retail price of 400 gems for a specific skin.

> > > * 400 is the cost of a random MountFit (from a set of 15 or 30) and the average cost of a bundled MountFit. (240 is sometimes the discount price)

> > > * 1200 for a specific MountFit within a set. (760 is sometimes the discount price)

> > > * 2000 for a premium MountFit. (1600 is sometimes the introductory price and the typical discount price later)

> >

> > Just because they've committed to an idea doesn't make it a good one.

>

> We haven't established that it's a bad idea. There's plenty of evidence that some people don't like it and ANet claims to have plenty of data to show that this pricing policy earns more money for them than selling (character) outfits for 800 gems retail.

>

> So (a) it's a good idea for the long-term health of the company that produces the game, thus (b) allowing most of us to play without spending any real world cash at all, even though © it rubs some of us the wrong way.

 

I would argue that the majority of us HAS spent real world cash for the game and that doesn't include gem purchases which are indeed optional. This was a B2P game, not pure F2P, meaning you have spent cash for the base game + HoT (at full game price) + PoF for the full experience. Or any combination of base + expansion. I see no evidence of pure F2P players coming after HoT being the majority, quite the opposite. Now one could argue that this is not enough to sustain an AAA mmo for long term and they might be right. But if the cash store policies are near identical with f2p games (catering to minority of big spenders), what's the point of B2P?

 

Of course, I agree it is a good idea for the company, they have all the numbers after all. But I believe it is a good idea for NCsoft's lofty, short term goals instead of Anet's long term health. Which is the way the industry works these days, it would be naive to expect something radically different here.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Wildon.7618" said:

> What I would question though, would Ernestine in your example keep purchasing that 2000 gems every month if she did not have anything to spend them on and just kept stockpiling more and more?

Some people seem to. Some spend on other thing (BL keys seems to popular).

 

> If she was unable to convert the extra gems to gold,

And if my grandma had wheels, she'd be a car? I'm teasing because I don't understand the relevance. The game does have a gems-to-gold system. My comment was strictly about how the mechanics work.

 

> Although one thing I would really get behind would be a monthly subscription option for the game. Make it something you subscribe to for $15 a month and get 1200 gems and a few small extras to spice it up added to your account every month, lets say a black lion key and some transmutation charges for an example off the top of my head.

I have trouble understanding this. You can already spend US$15/month... or $25/month. Except instead of getting a fixed set of things, you get whatever you like.

(They aren't likely to offer discounted gems: that turns out to discourage people who buy gems irregularly.)

 

 

 

 

> @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said:

> I would argue that the majority of us HAS spent real world cash for the game and that doesn't include gem purchases which are indeed optional. This was a B2P game, not pure F2P, meaning you have spent cash for the base game + HoT (at full game price) + PoF for the full experience. Or any combination of base + expansion. I see no evidence of pure F2P players coming after HoT being the majority, quite the opposite. Now one could argue that this is not enough to sustain an AAA mmo for long term and they might be right. But if the cash store policies are near identical with f2p games (catering to minority of big spenders), what's the point of B2P?

 

The majority have not spent real world cash on the game _outside_ of the expansions. And a surprisingly number of people haven't spent on those. (As we can see from various posts here and on Reddit complaining about expansion-related restrictions.)

 

Regardless, my comment was about people spending RL world cash on gems; the majority do not (that goes for any game, not just this one).

 

>

> Of course, I agree it is a good idea for the company, they have all the numbers after all. But I believe it is a good idea for NCsoft's lofty, short term goals instead of Anet's long term health. Which is the way the industry works these days, it would be naive to expect something radically different here.

Near as I can tell from what ANet's posted, gem shop strategies are long term, not short. It took them some time to figure how they wanted to monetize mounts, for example, and that's intended to generate income for years, not just for a few months.

 

[Biff.5312]

Given that the gem store price for this set of skins is the same as what they often charge for a single skin, I don't understand your complaint. Basically you are paying for one skin and receiving the option to chose which of 5 to use. They should do this more often, or else reduce the cost of individual skins (which I doubt will happen).

[MoriMoriMori.5349]

I honestly don't understand what can be discussed at such length for such topic. **None** of the content in gemstore is even remotely mandatory. To some extent you could say LS chapters are very useful, as they provide access to very good maps, but then again you could consider them as another form of expansion you can buy bit by bit, and problem solved.

 

What else could you **demand** from Anet? Gemshop is for those who are willing to dump some money for cosmetics and QoL, supporting the game in the process and it's "take it, or leave it" kind of deal at this point. If they are a bit too grabby to make money, then what's the problem? Let them be, if it's better for their budget. You can't afford it? Too bad, farm gold in Tyria less, and farm $ IRL more, then. Don't buy it if those few extra $ you'll pay for stuff you don't need worth such a fuss for you.

[Wildon.7618]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> I have trouble understanding this. You can already spend US$15/month... or $25/month. Except instead of getting a fixed set of things, you get whatever you like.

> (They aren't likely to offer discounted gems: that turns out to discourage people who buy gems irregularly.)

 

I wouldn't really want them at a discount, for the reason that you mentioned among others. It is more about just creating an automatic budget for the game. I'm not wanting them to give me any specific items, just the gems that you would normally receive for that amount of money. And maybe a shiny low value consumable item or 2 that wouldn't upset those that don't get it (like some transmutation charges) to help entice people to sign up. (I would personally sign up just for the gems alone, but I know a lot of people need something extra to pull the trigger on a subscription)

 

In a game like ESO I just look at my account every now and then and watch the premium currency slowly climb up over time without me purchasing anything manually. Where in GW2 I have to manually make the decision to purchase those gems every time. May just be me, but I am far less likely to purchase a pack of gems when I don't have anything that I want to buy than I am to set up a monthly subscription to support a game that I enjoy. Also an automatic payment option would keep running when I am taking a break from the game while manual purchases means I don't buy any gems when I'm spending time playing a different game (I generally jump back and forth between a few games, so I can go a few months where I don't play a specific game at all).

 

Just the way that my mind works, it would be a way for them to get me to happily purchase more gems than I currently do.

[AlexxxDelta.1806]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Wildon.7618" said:

> > What I would question though, would Ernestine in your example keep purchasing that 2000 gems every month if she did not have anything to spend them on and just kept stockpiling more and more?

> Some people seem to. Some spend on other thing (BL keys seems to popular).

>

> > If she was unable to convert the extra gems to gold,

> And if my grandma had wheels, she'd be a car? I'm teasing because I don't understand the relevance. The game does have a gems-to-gold system. My comment was strictly about how the mechanics work.

>

> > Although one thing I would really get behind would be a monthly subscription option for the game. Make it something you subscribe to for $15 a month and get 1200 gems and a few small extras to spice it up added to your account every month, lets say a black lion key and some transmutation charges for an example off the top of my head.

> I have trouble understanding this. You can already spend US$15/month... or $25/month. Except instead of getting a fixed set of things, you get whatever you like.

> (They aren't likely to offer discounted gems: that turns out to discourage people who buy gems irregularly.)

>

>

>

>

> > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said:

> > I would argue that the majority of us HAS spent real world cash for the game and that doesn't include gem purchases which are indeed optional. This was a B2P game, not pure F2P, meaning you have spent cash for the base game + HoT (at full game price) + PoF for the full experience. Or any combination of base + expansion. I see no evidence of pure F2P players coming after HoT being the majority, quite the opposite. Now one could argue that this is not enough to sustain an AAA mmo for long term and they might be right. But if the cash store policies are near identical with f2p games (catering to minority of big spenders), what's the point of B2P?

>

> The majority have not spent real world cash on the game _outside_ of the expansions. And a surprisingly number of people haven't spent on those. (As we can see from various posts here and on Reddit complaining about expansion-related restrictions.)

>

> Regardless, my comment was about people spending RL world cash on gems; the majority do not (that goes for any game, not just this one).

>

> >

> > Of course, I agree it is a good idea for the company, they have all the numbers after all. But I believe it is a good idea for NCsoft's lofty, short term goals instead of Anet's long term health. Which is the way the industry works these days, it would be naive to expect something radically different here.

> Near as I can tell from what ANet's posted, gem shop strategies are long term, not short. It took them some time to figure how they wanted to monetize mounts, for example, and that's intended to generate income for years, not just for a few months.

>

 

The reason I mentioned "short term" is because I don't see this monetization model being viable for too long. Microtransactions (or macro in some cases) across all gaming platforms including mobile, have caused explosive growth in the industry over the past decade. But lately we see the community getting increasingly annoyed with the model, even this game made headlines during the mount controversy. With more and more services competing for that "whale's" disposable income it won't be long until the bubble bursts.

 

That won't stop investors and shareholders from milking this cash cow dry, while it is on its last legs (thus the short term). Anet's layoffs weren't an isolated incident, you can see the same happening all over the industry in the end of this fiscal year. To me these are signs of a model built on shaky legs.

[A Big Guy.9702]

> @"MoriMoriMori.5349" said:

> I honestly don't understand what can be discussed at such length for such topic. **None** of the content in gemstore is even remotely mandatory.

Eh, I think you could make the case that additional bag slots are basically mandatory once you get to some of the more profitable map metas, where items are flooding your inventory and you can't really stop to shuffle stuff around.

I also think most players find that the cost attached to changing hairstyles leaves a foul taste in their mouth, since most other MMO's do it for free.

 

>If they are a bit too grabby to make money, then what's the problem?

I think you kinda answered your own question in the first half of it.

I mean, in another thread, I just argued that I'd like more avenues to spend money in this game. But I regularly see this talking point come up in any and every discussion about game monetization. Frankly, it isn't really something I think I'll get.

"If you think a company is trying to fleece you, why are you complaining? Just don't buy from them."

Consumers can and should speak up about things that bother them. Companies are not our personal friends and they do not care about us. They care about the cash we have.

[MoriMoriMori.5349]

> @"A Big Guy.9702" said:

> Eh, I think you could make the case that additional bag slots are basically mandatory once you get to some of the more profitable map metas, where items are flooding your inventory and you can't really stop to shuffle stuff around.

Nah. Meta isn't mandatory. Gold-farming isn't mandatory. Those maps aren't mandatory, I personally have never stayed in one map for more than a few days, never joined any meta zergs etc during my 2-3 months of play since I started - and yet I earned enough gold to buy myself 18slots bags and 2 differenet sets of exotic gear (berserk and maradeur). And that's about all you need to access 90% of game's content. Your quest for getting every Legendary in the game, or your decision to only pay for ingame vanity/QoL items with gold, instead of real currency (2 most popular reasons to farm gold ingame) is only your own initiatives never ever have forced on you.

 

And to boot, bag/banks expansions are happen to be those few items which are always accessible to you as a separate items, and not as part of any bundles. So your case is falling apart.

 

> @"A Big Guy.9702" said:

> Consumers can and should speak up about things that bother them. Companies are not our personal friends and they do not care about us. They care about the cash we have.

You can speak about it, if you wish, but it's just starting to sound a bit entitled sometimes. Like you would honestly expect for Anet to start make free giveaways of items they sell exactly to grab some money from you. That sort of defeats the purpose of gemshop.

 

[Tanner Blackfeather.6509]

> @"A Big Guy.9702" said:

> Eh, I think you could make the case that additional bag slots are basically mandatory once you get to some of the more profitable map metas, where items are flooding your inventory and you can't really stop to shuffle stuff around.

You can make the case, but it's not going to stand up to testing. ;) I used to AB multiloot with no extra bag slots and no infinite salvage kit. (It's what made me buy the copper-fed!)

I didn't get an extra bag slot until the Olmakhan bag came.

 

It's *useful*, no doubt about it; even to the point I'll recommend it to almost everyone. But not mandatory. The Salvage All function, and the Rune/Sigil rework, along with Deposit All solidly keeps extra bags in the "nice to have" category and out of the "pretty much mandatory" category.

 

I think a permanent salvage kit is closer to mandatory - either copper-fed or rune-crafter's.

[Chasind.3128]

I haven't purchased from the Gem store in some time because the only cosmetic content we seem to be getting are Chair skins, Harvesting tool skins, Backwings & Mount skins you can't purchase individually. That's not the cosmetic content I want or would be willing to buy.

Warclaw is an ugly, ugly mount. It's like some 10 year-old, who just got into anime & Can't actually distinguish between asian cultures, drew it up & submitted it to an adult art contest & his piece won. Why? Because his grandmother & aunt were on the voting committee & wanted to be "fair." That's what the Warclaw looks like.

I would like to see better skins for it that make it look nothing like the Warclaw. Like how the Griffon has a Winged Lion skin.

I'd want a Sabretooth (NO METAL ARMOR) with bones as armor & a reptile skin saddle. Something that looks like it belongs in a 1980's Thundercat / He-Man saga.

 

I'd also like a new & vast selection of hairstyles for all races & new faces. We haven't gotten anything worth mentioning as far as cosmetics go.