Ghost Horse 3000 crowns, overpriced or a good price?

SSlarg

I think 2000 or 2500 crowns would have been a more appropriate price.

Soul_Marrow

25 dollars for a digital re-skin is obviously overpriced. Has everyone in the world lost their minds? Whether or not someone likes it enough to pay for it is beside the point.

You need to keep things in perspective:
1) A NEW game costs 59.99 to purchase.
2) A new-in-box OLDER game typically costs 19.99 to 29.99.
3) A single re-skin of a mount in-game costs 25.00.

Think about ALL of the content you get in a game. All of the art that is created, all of the gameplay aspects, the story, multiplayer components, balancing, etc...everything it takes to create a game from scratch. They sell it at a price that allows them to recoup that investment AND to make money (return on investment).

Now think about the value offered between a complete gaming experience for 19.99-59.99 vs the value offered from a re-skin horse to ride in the already completed game. Microtransactions have destroyed gaming.

Full disclosure, I love the mount so I'm not hating on the way it looks. It simply is a TERRIBLE cost to value ratio. If YOU personally value it enough to spend that much on it, so be it...but the comparison between these things should give consumers pause. These are the types of things that used to cost 1.99. DLC map packs cost between 5 and 20 dollars for games and they add an entirely different experience. This is a 25 dollar cosmetic horse. They tested the market and enough consumers purchased the digital content to justify that meteoric rise in price. Please resist bad economic practices and vote with your wallet. This takes foresight and discipline, but in the long run we all win.

strangeradnd

Soul_Marrow wrote: »

25 dollars for a digital re-skin is obviously overpriced. Has everyone in the world lost their minds? Whether or not someone likes it enough to pay for it is beside the point.

I think it is exactly the point. As long as someone considers it to have that value than it is worth it to them. It is the same with everything, even the currency used to pay for it. Now for me, not a chance I would spend that for it.

Soul_Marrow

strangeradnd wrote: »

Soul_Marrow wrote: »

25 dollars for a digital re-skin is obviously overpriced. Has everyone in the world lost their minds? Whether or not someone likes it enough to pay for it is beside the point.

I think it is exactly the point. As long as someone considers it to have that value than it is worth it to them. It is the same with everything, even the currency used to pay for it. Now for me, not a chance I would spend that for it.

Yes, but the entire post needs to be read for context. Cherry-picking 2 sentences from the post certainly doesn't move the conversation forward at all.

JWKe

Why do people buy blood diamond instead of synthetic gem-quality diamonds grown in a lab that are chemically, physically and optically identical (sometimes even superior) to naturally occurring ones?

Answer for the most part i believe is that people are willing to pay for it.

So to answer your question. I don't have the data ZoS have but i'm just going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it's priced correctly. Ultimately, at least you get what you pay for.

Marabornwingrion

These days every new item in Crown Store is overpriced.

danielclarkb16_ESO

Soul_Marrow wrote: »

They tested the market and enough consumers purchased the digital content to justify that meteoric rise in price. Please resist bad economic practices and vote with your wallet. This takes foresight and discipline, but in the long run we all win.

It's not just ZOS that are doing this, think this is just how most games are these days. I can think of loads of new games with overpriced micro transactions. The industry itself tested the market, not ZOS.

Soul_Marrow

danielclarkb16_ESO wrote: »

Soul_Marrow wrote: »

They tested the market and enough consumers purchased the digital content to justify that meteoric rise in price. Please resist bad economic practices and vote with your wallet. This takes foresight and discipline, but in the long run we all win.

It's not just ZOS that are doing this, think this is just how most games are these days. I can think of loads of new games with overpriced micro transactions. The industry itself tested the market, not ZOS.

I agree to some extent, but each individual company has to test THEIR OWN markets as well. Think of it as the difference between a high quality clothing boutique on Sunset Strip vs Kohl's. or a niche market seller who only sells their item online vs another company who may market differently & sell both online AND in brick/mortal venues.Industry gives a company the courage to test their own market based on recent market trends as well as based on their own customers. That doesn't negate the realistic value argument. I know that someone will spend money however they want to and that is absolutely their right to do so, but it only harms us all as a whole entity (lovers of the game/potential customers) unfortunately because we all end up paying much more to get much less. I'm not expecting it to change because I know how people are in the age of social media, but if seeing the argument laid out changes the perspective of only a handful of people then it's worth it. Baby steps.

RANKK7

I'll pass this time, the transparency is not my cup of tea and the price too doesn't encourage at all.
This is the first horsy I won't get, already wrote they could have colored it pink and it's very likely I would have bought it, transparency just ruins for me the horse feeling, projection too much.

So about the price I surely agree, alpha channel on old model with some shades and ready to go, 3k crowns.

1.5K (max) should have been the price this time around for me to even consider it.

DaveMoeDee

I would consider it for 10 crowns.

RANKK7

----I've seen the Dire Pony is for sale NOW for 24h---

I will get that! Hope you all see the banner and won't miss it in case you are interested.

There is also the black deer (not for me that one, but it's good to see returning items!)

Morgul667

ovepriced

Avran_Sylt

If I were into that kind of aesthetic, maybe. But I've yet to really find a mount that I actually want to use. The alliance War Horses have come close though.

Ohtimbar

Seems like 4000 crowns could become the new standard for mounts. I can stomach 3k for a cool mount, barely, but 4k is a bridge too far for me. Each to their own though, it's worth what the buyer will pay. As for the ghost horse specifically I think it looks neat, but the transparency does look strange with certain outfits.

DocFrost72

On sale, a 21000 crown pack costs roughly 75$ US. That makes 1 dollar worth 280 crowns. The 3k mount then, costs 10.72$ after rounding up.

If you get two months of ESO plus, you get this mount with the crowns given, while retaining your 2 months worth of ESO plus.

THESE are the things people forget when looking at mount prices, but trust me when I say zos does not forget.

FYI- ten bucks for a horse is still too much for me xD

strangeradnd

Soul_Marrow wrote: »

strangeradnd wrote: »

Soul_Marrow wrote: »

25 dollars for a digital re-skin is obviously overpriced. Has everyone in the world lost their minds? Whether or not someone likes it enough to pay for it is beside the point.

I think it is exactly the point. As long as someone considers it to have that value than it is worth it to them. It is the same with everything, even the currency used to pay for it. Now for me, not a chance I would spend that for it.

Yes, but the entire post needs to be read for context. Cherry-picking 2 sentences from the post certainly doesn't move the conversation forward at all.

I thought my statement carried my thought on the whole post. It doesn't matter the item or price if someone sees value. I know people that wouldn't pay full price for the game but because they were able to get it at a discounted price they happily spend on crown items I consider over priced. It is all based on the markets perception. I agree with you that it is expensive but I understand that to many it is not.

Shanjijri

Overpriced. I stay on my tiger.

Soul_Marrow

strangeradnd wrote: »

Soul_Marrow wrote: »

strangeradnd wrote: »

Soul_Marrow wrote: »

25 dollars for a digital re-skin is obviously overpriced. Has everyone in the world lost their minds? Whether or not someone likes it enough to pay for it is beside the point.

I think it is exactly the point. As long as someone considers it to have that value than it is worth it to them. It is the same with everything, even the currency used to pay for it. Now for me, not a chance I would spend that for it.

Yes, but the entire post needs to be read for context. Cherry-picking 2 sentences from the post certainly doesn't move the conversation forward at all.

I thought my statement carried my thought on the whole post. It doesn't matter the item or price if someone sees value. I know people that wouldn't pay full price for the game but because they were able to get it at a discounted price they happily spend on crown items I consider over priced. It is all based on the markets perception. I agree with you that it is expensive but I understand that to many it is not.

Respectfully, you keep missing the mark ever-so-slightly with what I am failing to convey. I am just having trouble putting it into words in any meaningful way. It does not matter whether someone considers it expensive or not. It's a matter of value/content per dollar. This wasn't a post about someone's personal perception of what they are willing to pay for it and it isn't a debate about wages because they make above or below average wages, etc. It's a matter of not being worth it from a value/content standpoint. It's a comparison. The purchase is silly whether you make 10k a year or 400k a year because of the value/content per dollar, but that doesn't mean someone isn't welcome to make that purchase with their own money. I do realize some people will buy it anyway. Apples to oranges.

I'm not making an argument from opinion, I'm making an argument from data. I'm an engineer. Emotional/impulsive/opinion based decisions or discussions do not interest me. What does interest me is the discussion of the data, the empirical comparisons between the 2 and what they do or do not offer someone to entice them to make the purchase in the first place. I feel like we are discussing the same subject, but from an entirely misunderstood perspective.

Imagine how many people would go to GameStop or Wal-Mart and buy a disc with JUST a digital horse on it for 35 or 40 dollars. Now imagine how many people may walk into the same stores and purchase a fully developed game that they can enjoy for 200 hours... something with a story, a single player campaign, a multiplayer aspect, unlockable things to keep them coming back for that sense of accomplishment, etc...lots of content. My only point is that the item being offered is hardly worth the cost regardless of whether or not someone is willing to pay for it. Purely from a value perspective. This is an item that can't even exist on it's own. It only exists within the context of the fully developed game. These are over-priced, cosmetic, digital parasites. Now if they sold mounts at 2 or 3 dollars a piece then you could make an entirely different argument based on the value perspective because it is nowhere near as disproportionate. I don't want you to think this is an ACTUAL argument. I am simply explaining what I meant in the first couple posts in hopes to be on the same page.

strangeradnd

Soul_Marrow wrote: »

strangeradnd wrote: »

Soul_Marrow wrote: »

strangeradnd wrote: »

Soul_Marrow wrote: »

25 dollars for a digital re-skin is obviously overpriced. Has everyone in the world lost their minds? Whether or not someone likes it enough to pay for it is beside the point.

I think it is exactly the point. As long as someone considers it to have that value than it is worth it to them. It is the same with everything, even the currency used to pay for it. Now for me, not a chance I would spend that for it.

Yes, but the entire post needs to be read for context. Cherry-picking 2 sentences from the post certainly doesn't move the conversation forward at all.

I thought my statement carried my thought on the whole post. It doesn't matter the item or price if someone sees value. I know people that wouldn't pay full price for the game but because they were able to get it at a discounted price they happily spend on crown items I consider over priced. It is all based on the markets perception. I agree with you that it is expensive but I understand that to many it is not.

Respectfully, you keep missing the mark ever-so-slightly with what I am failing to convey. I am just having trouble putting it into words in any meaningful way. It does not matter whether someone considers it expensive or not. It's a matter of value/content per dollar. This wasn't a post about someone's personal perception of what they are willing to pay for it and it isn't a debate about wages because they make above or below average wages, etc. It's a matter of not being worth it from a value/content standpoint. It's a comparison. The purchase is silly whether you make 10k a year or 400k a year because of the value/content per dollar, but that doesn't mean someone isn't welcome to make that purchase with their own money. I do realize some people will buy it anyway. Apples to oranges.

I'm not making an argument from opinion, I'm making an argument from data. I'm an engineer. Emotional/impulsive/opinion based decisions or discussions do not interest me. What does interest me is the discussion of the data, the empirical comparisons between the 2 and what they do or do not offer someone to entice them to make the purchase in the first place. I feel like we are discussing the same subject, but from an entirely misunderstood perspective.

Imagine how many people would go to GameStop or Wal-Mart and buy a disc with JUST a digital horse on it for 35 or 40 dollars. Now imagine how many people may walk into the same stores and purchase a fully developed game that they can enjoy for 200 hours... something with a story, a single player campaign, a multiplayer aspect, unlockable things to keep them coming back for that sense of accomplishment, etc...lots of content. My only point is that the item being offered is hardly worth the cost regardless of whether or not someone is willing to pay for it. Purely from a value perspective. This is an item that can't even exist on it's own. It only exists within the context of the fully developed game. These are over-priced, cosmetic, digital parasites. Now if they sold mounts at 2 or 3 dollars a piece then you could make an entirely different argument based on the value perspective because it is nowhere near as disproportionate. I don't want you to think this is an ACTUAL argument. I am simply explaining what I meant in the first couple posts in hopes to be on the same page.

They do go into Walmart just to buy a mount. I know people who specifically purchase PS store cards with the intent to buy crowns. I even do this on occasion. I don't mind spending $50 for crowns and don't even look at the other games when I go in to do this. Like myself I know many people who focus on a single game at a time and can easily play only 1 game during the course of a year so we are more willing to spend on things we want for that game.

Like I added I agree it is expensive but I still see where it is worth it. If someone is going to use that mount for 1000 hours of game play it is worth more than a new game that won't get played.

strangeradnd

By the way. I understand your point and am not trying to pick a fight. You are right they could sell more cheaper, but they would likely make less. 1000 at $40 is worth more than 10000 at $3.

I run an operation where sales vs. price determines what my year will look like. In most occasions selling less for more leaves me better off at the end of the year.

Beardimus

SSlarg wrote: »

I think 2000 or 2500 crowns would have been a more appropriate price.

It's 1500 really. As we all buy crowns in the sale right. Who pays full price?

sdtlc

The question is not "is it", the question is "by how much" ...

Danikat

I think it's very over priced considering you don't even get a complete horse! For that price I'd expect some skin at the very least.

Soul_Marrow

strangeradnd wrote: »

Soul_Marrow wrote: »

strangeradnd wrote: »

Soul_Marrow wrote: »

strangeradnd wrote: »

Soul_Marrow wrote: »

25 dollars for a digital re-skin is obviously overpriced. Has everyone in the world lost their minds? Whether or not someone likes it enough to pay for it is beside the point.

I think it is exactly the point. As long as someone considers it to have that value than it is worth it to them. It is the same with everything, even the currency used to pay for it. Now for me, not a chance I would spend that for it.

Yes, but the entire post needs to be read for context. Cherry-picking 2 sentences from the post certainly doesn't move the conversation forward at all.

I thought my statement carried my thought on the whole post. It doesn't matter the item or price if someone sees value. I know people that wouldn't pay full price for the game but because they were able to get it at a discounted price they happily spend on crown items I consider over priced. It is all based on the markets perception. I agree with you that it is expensive but I understand that to many it is not.

Respectfully, you keep missing the mark ever-so-slightly with what I am failing to convey. I am just having trouble putting it into words in any meaningful way. It does not matter whether someone considers it expensive or not. It's a matter of value/content per dollar. This wasn't a post about someone's personal perception of what they are willing to pay for it and it isn't a debate about wages because they make above or below average wages, etc. It's a matter of not being worth it from a value/content standpoint. It's a comparison. The purchase is silly whether you make 10k a year or 400k a year because of the value/content per dollar, but that doesn't mean someone isn't welcome to make that purchase with their own money. I do realize some people will buy it anyway. Apples to oranges.

I'm not making an argument from opinion, I'm making an argument from data. I'm an engineer. Emotional/impulsive/opinion based decisions or discussions do not interest me. What does interest me is the discussion of the data, the empirical comparisons between the 2 and what they do or do not offer someone to entice them to make the purchase in the first place. I feel like we are discussing the same subject, but from an entirely misunderstood perspective.

Imagine how many people would go to GameStop or Wal-Mart and buy a disc with JUST a digital horse on it for 35 or 40 dollars. Now imagine how many people may walk into the same stores and purchase a fully developed game that they can enjoy for 200 hours... something with a story, a single player campaign, a multiplayer aspect, unlockable things to keep them coming back for that sense of accomplishment, etc...lots of content. My only point is that the item being offered is hardly worth the cost regardless of whether or not someone is willing to pay for it. Purely from a value perspective. This is an item that can't even exist on it's own. It only exists within the context of the fully developed game. These are over-priced, cosmetic, digital parasites. Now if they sold mounts at 2 or 3 dollars a piece then you could make an entirely different argument based on the value perspective because it is nowhere near as disproportionate. I don't want you to think this is an ACTUAL argument. I am simply explaining what I meant in the first couple posts in hopes to be on the same page.

They do go into Walmart just to buy a mount. I know people who specifically purchase PS store cards with the intent to buy crowns. I even do this on occasion. I don't mind spending $50 for crowns and don't even look at the other games when I go in to do this. Like myself I know many people who focus on a single game at a time and can easily play only 1 game during the course of a year so we are more willing to spend on things we want for that game.

Like I added I agree it is expensive but I still see where it is worth it. If someone is going to use that mount for 1000 hours of game play it is worth more than a new game that won't get played.

I didn't say they purchased a mount in this game by walking into a store and buying a "points" card to their online gaming service of choice. I said they walk into a store and purchase a disc with JUST a digital horse on it and nothing more. It's an example given through hypothetical thought in order to help explain the original post, an analogy.

As I stated, my post isn't about PERSONALLY PERCEIVED VALUE, it is about EMPIRICAL VALUE. A person may choose to buy a bottle of sand from a mysterious beach that they BELIEVE to having healing powers...they may even spend 200 dollars on that sand becaue it has value TO THEM...value that they perceive through emotion or belief. That is PERSONALLY PERCEIVED VALUE. It isn't the same as unarguable, empirical value. The value of platinum or gold is an example of empirical value because it is valuable whether or not you personally find it valuable. The value may inherently fluctuate, but it holds value regardless of whether or not it is valuable to YOU. It has EMPIRICAL VALUE.

Not trying to be rude, but let's agree to disagree because you are fundamentally missing the point being made and I no longer have the energy to attempt to explain it. You are taking a road based upon feelings about a value and I am taking a road based upon data and the ability to observe tangible value. Again, apples and oranges.

Soul_Marrow

strangeradnd wrote: »

By the way. I understand your point and am not trying to pick a fight. You are right they could sell more cheaper, but they would likely make less. 1000 at $40 is worth more than 10000 at $3.

I run an operation where sales vs. price determines what my year will look like. In most occasions selling less for more leaves me better off at the end of the year.

And 100,000 at 1 dollar is worth more than both examples you've given. What's the point in saying it? . When the cost is lower, more people buy. It's very simple. If you don't believe me then look up the rate at which dollar stores have grown over the last 2 decades...and now even ".99 cent stores. Notice how more of them are springing up than niche market boutiques? There is a reason that the most successful businesses that exist today are in the business of QUANTITY That is exactly how they became the most successful businesses that exist today. Do you think that Amazon or Walmart got as far as they did by selling high to a smaller customer base? Of course not. What you are describing is called a "niche market" and while that can be very successful for some business owners (typically small businesses), they are rarely, if ever, more successful than the mass appeal approach when you have the proper customer base. This game HAS the customer base. I could go along with you on this example that you gave IF the game only had 100,000 users. It doesn't. It has MILLIONS of users across multiple platforms.

strangeradnd

Soul_Marrow wrote: »

strangeradnd wrote: »

By the way. I understand your point and am not trying to pick a fight. You are right they could sell more cheaper, but they would likely make less. 1000 at $40 is worth more than 10000 at $3.

I run an operation where sales vs. price determines what my year will look like. In most occasions selling less for more leaves me better off at the end of the year.

And 100,000 at 1 dollar is worth more than both examples you've given. What's the point in saying it? . When the cost is lower, more people buy. It's very simple. If you don't believe me then look up the rate at which dollar stores have grown over the last 2 decades...and now even ".99 cent stores. Notice how more of them are springing up than niche market boutiques? There is a reason that the most successful businesses that exist today are in the business of QUANTITY That is exactly how they became the most successful businesses that exist today. Do you think that Amazon or Walmart got as far as they did by selling high to a smaller customer base? Of course not. What you are describing is called a "niche market" and while that can be very successful for some business owners (typically small businesses), they are rarely, if ever, more successful than the mass appeal approach when you have the proper customer base. This game HAS the customer base. I could go along with you on this example that you gave IF the game only had 100,000 users. It doesn't. It has MILLIONS of users across multiple platforms.

My main point is this, if they feel they make more at a higher price they go with it. The base is basically established and they have data that tells them what portion of that base is buying. If 5% of the base buys things all the time regardless of price and 8% buy things on sale, they make more on the 5%. They should have plenty of data to indicate what their market is likely to do and I am sure if indicators showed that selling things for 75% less would result in 5 times the sales they would do so. (My personal experience in this is from working in two companies in the last 30 years focused on finding the right price point. These companies are not as large as ZOS but we are talking about 9 figure sales so I have some understanding of the principles involved.)

As for the empirical value of a disc vs. digital skin, it is no more valid than saying buying a cd has more value than buying from itunes the lack of a solid physical form does not remove the empirical value of the download as the product still exists and a value can be observed in its sales. I majored in engineering and understand your basis but it is flawed in a marketing analysis.

That said we are likely not to agree which is fine as I can still respect your opinion with out us agreeing completely.

Palidon

Waste of money if you ask me, but to each their own.

huntgod_ESO

Soul_Marrow wrote: »

strangeradnd wrote: »

By the way. I understand your point and am not trying to pick a fight. You are right they could sell more cheaper, but they would likely make less. 1000 at $40 is worth more than 10000 at $3.

I run an operation where sales vs. price determines what my year will look like. In most occasions selling less for more leaves me better off at the end of the year.

And 100,000 at 1 dollar is worth more than both examples you've given. What's the point in saying it? . When the cost is lower, more people buy. It's very simple. If you don't believe me then look up the rate at which dollar stores have grown over the last 2 decades...and now even ".99 cent stores. Notice how more of them are springing up than niche market boutiques? There is a reason that the most successful businesses that exist today are in the business of QUANTITY That is exactly how they became the most successful businesses that exist today. Do you think that Amazon or Walmart got as far as they did by selling high to a smaller customer base? Of course not. What you are describing is called a "niche market" and while that can be very successful for some business owners (typically small businesses), they are rarely, if ever, more successful than the mass appeal approach when you have the proper customer base. This game HAS the customer base. I could go along with you on this example that you gave IF the game only had 100,000 users. It doesn't. It has MILLIONS of users across multiple platforms.

I am pretty sure they use an algorithm to determine the optimal price to unit sold. They have access to their sales data and I don't. The process is pretty straightforward, where they know approximately how many of a given item will sell, and exclusivity does drive some of that, which factors the price up. I am surprised that the price comes out as high as it does, but again, I don't have access to their sales metrics or the algo used. Either way, it has clearly spit out what the approximate sales number is by unit price, and 3000 crowns is the magic number for maximizing the unit sold and profit.

WhiteCoatSyndrome

I thought it looked overpriced, but it wasn't something I was overly eager for in the first place.

DoctorESO

Remember that if you are an ESO+ subscriber, you get 1,500 crowns per month.

SydneyGrey

Overpriced, but I have to say, it does look dang good.