Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
Artificial Scarcity and Emotional Manipulation
Prince of Elsewhere
Member
The recent poll about daily rewards and other related cosmetic discussions have led me to delve a bit into the nature of artificial scarcity and the manipulative nature of withholding as a means of encouraging someone to do something. I've had many, many, words run through my head in regards to the topic (that in part kept me up last night) but in an effort to remain civil I shall be succinct.
I find the use of a monthly deadline to encourage people to give money, relatively speaking 'Right Now', to a game (that is only in alpha) rather than giving a reasonable time for love and appreciation to blossom into a heart of giving, to be emotionally manipulative.
I find the use of a monthly deadline to encourage people to give money, relatively speaking 'Right Now', to a game (that is only in alpha) rather than giving a reasonable time for love and appreciation to blossom into a heart of giving, to be emotionally manipulative.
1
Comments
Intrepid does seem to have a special knack at really cranking down on that nerve. The best you can do if you're uncomfortable w/ it is to just not buy anything and wait and see where the game is at it's launch.
Do you think it Is it the intention of Intrepid Studios to strong arm you into buying something each month?
I am skeptical that the DEVs really wanted to lean on FOMO as a way to drive monthly sales, but I am open to seeing counter opinions.
Personally I think they just brainstormed ways to make continued support of the game special. The monthly cosmetic system is the result. They may feel that in order for something to be special, it cant be something that is constantly available.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
I think you are right. They don't strike me as soulless marketing people, just in it for the short term gains. I generally like the people at Intrepid I've seen on the streams and from the forum.
But I also think they have a blind spot when it comes to this. They aren't stupid, they clearly know scarcity and time limited stuff makes more sales here and now. I am just not sure they really realize all the negatives to this approach. Or at least I hope it's ignorance, and not a case of "we don't care".
One of the studies I read showed that 2/3rds of people experience depression and anxiety when subjected to FOMO, and just don't like it. Another study showed that long term, people are much more reluctant to want to get the same experience again, decreasing loyalty. This translates to fewer sales in the cash shop, and quite possibly people straight up leaving the game over this.
I want AOC to succeed. From the studies I've read so far on this subject, I am convinced that the current cash shop FOMO tactic will be detrimental long term. The price is definitely also a factor. To a multi-millionaire, $115 each month for the whole cosmetic package is chump change. It doesn't register at all. It's the equivalent of the rest of us paying a couple of bucks for it, at most. For the average working or middle class player, $115 goes from "that's expensive" to "I simply cannot afford this."
I have bought packs, and I have no problem supporting the game development financially. I just really dislike the way they go about it. What's done is done and I know they can't make any retroactive changes, but I hope going forward (at least once the game is out) they tone the FOMO way down.
Can companies do a better job of limiting the possibility of 'FOMO' occurring for some players...? Of course. But ultimately it’s on the user to practice patience and self control.
If players or ‘potential players’ are struggling with ‘FOMO’ to the point that it is affecting their mental health, it may be best to step away... get some fresh air and realize it’s just a video game.
EDIT:
*Please don't get offended... I'm just using your quote as an example and when I say YOU I mean it for everyone.
This is an example of a 'YOU' problem. If someone feels like they are missing out because they cannot afford every cosmetic that comes out every month... that is not the fault of Intrepid Studios. People need to learn to control themselves and realize it's absolutely okay if they cannot afford or miss some limited cosmetics. It is not the end of the world. Control yourselves people.
To me this is such an unreasonable expectation. I am actually an average working middle class player, it would not put me out on the street to spend $115 a month for the total cosmetic package. I don't buy the cosmetics not because I don't value them. They are just outright useless for a utility stand point. Because they can not be dyed or used on a per slot basis, they are automatically less valuable than anything earnable in game. The mounts, and other things are a slightly different story. The bottom line with those is that you would only ever need one or two of a style you like. Which is probably what Intrepid was expecting the average player to think.
Do you need 12 house skins a year? That is just crazy. Especially when you have not seen what is earnable in game. The cosmetics are priced in a way where if you see something you like, anyone should be able to buy it. This completionism mentality boarders on being a mental disorder. It is compulsive unreasonable hoarding. If you are trying to earn all of the rewards achievable though game play that is one thing. If you are trying to buy everything in the cash shop. That is really no different in my mind to going here, and buying everything to show it off. https://www.gucci.com/us/en/ca/whats-new/the-north-face-x-gucci-c-the-north-face-gucci
It should be obvious that anyone who wants to buy all of gucci's line up has a problem. Even if they are affluent enough to do it, it's still a insane decision. If you want to collect what you can because you can afford to that is one thing, but even jay leno pass on some cars.
The cash shop items should be treated like the luxury items they are, and they should not be seen as collectors items because they are not. No car nut is out there buying every 2020 car on the market. @Samson is correct. If you feel the need to collect everything. It is 100$ a YOU problem.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Not offended at all.
But I fundamentally disagree. So, I am going to take this discussion much broader than Intrepids cash shop here, to make my point.
It's too easy to blame the people (a majority of people if the studies are correct), when they are victims of deliberate manipulative techniques, that are shown to cause mental health issues (again, I am leaning on the studies here). I think companies are ethically responsible for how they use FOMO. I think consumer protection directives need to start including things like the ethical use of FOMO in business practices, just as they do for many other things, so companies also become legally responsible.
Personal responsibility is always important, and I think more research into FOMO and how to best teach people to alleviate it is important. It's a huge problem in social media too. But FOMO is also a fundamental part of being a human, and companies are spending billions of dollars researching how to best exploit FOMO and other psychological mechanisms to increase sales. Consumer protection agencies exist partly to protect people against the worst of that, because individuals stand no chance against that kind of concerted effort.
Now, I am not saying Intrepids cash shop is going to cause mental breakdowns. I am not trying to blow things out of proportion here.
Oh I agree, and the way to do that would be to remove the FOMO part by removing the time limit on the cosmetics. If Intrepid did that, there wouldn't be a problem, IMO.
Edit: Ok I need to comment on this part too
We are kind of agreeing here. You're middle class, you can afford the $115 a month if you valued them. But you don't value them much for the reasons you stated. That's just another way of saying they are too expensive for you. Had they only cost $1.15 for the whole package, chances are a lot more people might have bought some anyway, even if they don't really value them highly, and there would be much less FOMO. That was my whole point with multi-millionaire example and the pricing.
I actually also agree with you on the usefulness of a lot of them. I decided to buy some cosmetics I am extremely unlikely to ever use, simply as a way of throwing some money to Intrepid. I hope the cosmetics we earn ingame are even cooler than the stuff in the shop.
If they made it so that the monthly cosmetics were unlimited. They would not be able to start right away. They have set expectations for how the cosmetics work. So this month, and any past months are off the table permanently. Changing commitments like "These are only ever going to be available once." could lead to a massive amount of outrage, a huge loss in reputation, and a potential lawsuit. If they were to say "We reviewed our policy and starting next month the new cosmetics will be available indefinitely", that would be something else. Still there are a lot of people who enjoy the fact that these cosmetics are limited and special.
It is no secret that "Snail Boi" is my favorite mount. I would be a little heart broken if I found out others could buy him now. Celestal Steed was the first mount WOW sold. It would have been amazing if the first time I seen it was not 40 of them at the same time in Dalaran. Celestial Steed was never special. If they stopped selling it now, it would take years to be a rare sight. As it stands right now, I might see another person on "Snail Boi" every now, and then. I think it is going to be rare, that I see someone else on the same mount as me.
Yes if the price was $1.15 a might be tempted to buy them all. I don't need a lot of things, but sometimes if the price is so low. I may buy things I don't need on the off chance I can use it at some point. When you set the price that low I am not buying because I want it, I am buying it because I think it may be useful. You just set the price cheaper than a 20oz of coke at a gas station.
If they were $1.15 for the whole set. Too many people would have them, and they would not be special at all. At $1.15 I might find out that I only value them at $0.00. I bet if Gucci decided that they had way too much stock of a handbag, and if you just email them your address they will ship you a free bag. Nobody that is into fashion would want anything Gucci ever again. Nothing is special if everyone has it.
"These are not intended to be collectables." should be in big bold letters at the top of the cash shop. Maybe that would help.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Why have you attached emotions to a game that hasn't even been made yet? Or to an artists impression of cosmetics that have not even been made yet for a game that has not even been made yet?
That is in the top 10 oddest things I have ever heard on the internet.
Are you being purposefully pedantic?
Marketing and FOMO are, by design, intended to spark an emotional response to encourage you to purchase something. You cannot make it to adulthood w/o seeing an advertisement that makes you feel something whether you attached those emotions yourself or not.
Now if you wanted to have a talk w/ OP about why he feels the store is emotionally manipulative rather than just a fun way to support the game then we can have a conversation. However, it shouldn't be considered odd that marketing did it's job.
Good Examples:
Bad Example:
I hear the word "marketing" being thrown around a lot but do you realize that people are sick and tired of empty hype trains? How many Fallout 76's do you need to understand that marketting is shallow if there is no substance to back it up? The younger generations learned this quickly - which is why marketting teams were baffled by that generation for a time until they caught on to parasocial marketing, and a new cancer was born (#influencer)
But to return to "incentivising" players - my fear is the "overjustification effect" (see here) which has real long term implications for player retention.
To use another horrible wow tactic as an example, they started selling 6 month subscription packages at the start of major patches or expansions and "if you act now" you get the new shiny mount with it for "free."
This makes the average player believe it is limited by time and since the latest content was just launched you are basically being jabbed with a stick telling you it's a good idea to buy the package. Players do this without realizing what's going on and maybe a month or so later they end up quitting the game but the "magicians" over at blizzard are laughing away with your 6 month sub.
The justification for that entire offer is to take in as many long term Subs as possible without regard for the actual playerbase.
I didn't say a well crafted advertisement can't spark an emotional response, I am saying that there is literally no scope for what Intrepid have done to spark said emotional response on any scale that could lead one to assume that was the desired outcome.
Now, it may well be that there is someone out there that has a loved one that was killed by a giant, ridable snail. I would fully expect such a person to have an emotional response to a mount that is a giant snail. That is perfectly reasonable.
However, since very few people would find themselves in that particular situation, the claims of Intrepid emotionally manipulating people fall flat. That specific case is a person having an emotional response to something, rather than that something being designed to trigger an emotional response.
There is a MASSIVE difference between someone that can't keep their emotions in check feeling like those unchecked emotions have been manipulated, and a company going out of it's way to try and manipulate emotions.
To respond to the original quote directly. If someone can't take the emotion distress experienced by a company policy to make a few extra items a limited time purchase. The emotional distress involved in losing for that person to lose their node, house, resources, ect. In a living worlds PvP system might also be a bit too much for them.
Yes, humans can be moved by all sorts of marketing stimuli. It is the responsibility of an adult to try their best to rationally respond to the world around them. Any distress caused by FOMO is clearly irrational.
Intrepid might at least offer a "We are sorry if you don't like the policy, but we feel it is the best policy for the most people" type of statement. The maniacs that are going to pray on people in the open world will offer them no such quarter.
In short. If this policy is too emotionally challenging for someone. The game could quite well be too emotionally challenging as well.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
"Act Fast, buy now before it's too late, last chance, limited time" all these and more have been used to motivate people to buy literally anything from food to cars. FOMO works and it works damn well hence it's use by everyone.
The Intrepid store takes full advantage of that. That said, no one is saying that it's so toxic as to make someone break down mentally, merely that it does twist you emotionally to try and elicit a sale. Whether it's tugging on your desire for completion a desire to not miss out. Any arguments about someone else's mental state or even interactions with other players in the game itself are irrelevant as the only conversation being had is whether or not Intrepid's store is emotionally manipulative (It's use of FOMO making that objectively true) and to what extent that should be until it's considered unhealthy if not outright malicious.
That line will differ for everyone as you see in this very thread where some don't care whereas others care a lot. For myself, I really don't care that skins are limited I just don't like that there's no roadmap of upcoming skins so that you can be better informed and that you can't even access a la carte options until after you've put in over $100.
My first, and primary point would be "What is Intrepid's intent behind the policy?". You seem more convinced than me that Intrepid's tactics are mostly to drive sales. Normally I would agree, but Steven did something truly unprecedented. He funded the game himself. Sure he wants to make that money back. That may be part of it, but I have to assume that he also just wants somethings to be special. A small barrier to entry to prevent everyone from being everything all the time does that.
These things are silly, I agree. If there is no box fee, you should just be able to make an account and start buying anything.
The no road map makes a little sense because they make the cosmetics monthly, they could crunch and make a bunch ahead of time. I also kind of like looking forward to what they come up with monthly. One of these months I will see something I love...
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
If Intrepid were relying on FOMO for people to purchase cosmetics, they wouldn't have said the highlighted above - which is literally a quote. Additionally, Steven would never try and talk people out of buying supporter packs if they were using FOMO as a sales tactic - which is something else he has done in the past.
Yes, Steven has said no one needs to buy cosmetics and there are supposed to be equitable ones in game. However, equal is subjective and we know that there won't be recolors available to players so if you really like something you have to buy it when it's available...that's FOMO.
Doesn't mean it's malicious...but it does take advantage of people's fear of missing out.
@Vhaeyne I agree it'd be a lot to ask for their to be a clear roadmap when that would demand poor Margaret work overtime, that's why honestly I'd much rather the store allow people to buy any skins up to the launch of the game. For me, that allows people to say they supported the game w/o needing to have supported it on a specific month. That one extra level just rubs me wrong.
Then at launch when there's a team available to help design skins we could know what's coming 2-3 months ahead of time.
I don't think Intrepid is being overtly greedy it's just a few little things that have added up:
Does Intrepid use a standard fear of missing out marketing strategy? Yes they do.
From the red text that tells you a resort is sold out, to the quantity remaining on the item you are looking at on Amazon, FOMO marketing is a cornerstone principle in all marketing and advertising.
Limited time only, supplies are limited, act now, don't delay, last chance don't miss out, early bird special, two to a customer, batteries not included, free shipping and handling, some exceptions may apply.
What you can judge Intrepid on, is when it mattered, when people got their wallets crunched and times were tough they decided to extend their March 2020 sales and just keep that pack up until July 2020. They could have kept cranking out new cosmetics, but then people who didn't have any money would have felt compelled to open their wallet and make a choice between cosmetics and food.
Yes, Intrepid needs to maintain an income stream if they want to maintain their aggressive team growth. The more people you add onto a project the higher you drive your burn rate which means you either need to bring in more money or you burn through the pile you have.
Intrepid needs to be financially stable in order to bring the community the game everyone wants. Trying to make Intrepid feel bad for bringing in income is pretty emotionally manipulative in and of itself.
Just to be clear, I'm in no way trying to make anyone at Intrepid feel bad. The store is really my one nitpick and largely for the reasons I've stated.
In this particular thread it comes down to half the argument being that it doesn't matter at all b/c the game is fully funded anyways and the other half stating (as Jahlon said) it helps the studio be financially stable.
If the game is fully funded and the store is wholly irrelevant then I do think the monthly cosmetics for a pre-order is a hair to much. Opening it up until the launch of the game shouldn't hurt the value of the cosmetics at all and would allow people to show support when they're most capable of doing so w/o feeling pressured that they're missing out.
However, if the store is set up to maximize funding then that means it's set up to separate your money from your wallet and I do think that's the case. Doesn't mean Intrepid is evil or greedy (March being a fine example) but it is what it is and I think denying that isn't healthy.
At the end of the day I do think the store is set up to maximize FOMO and it's up to the individual to decide if they want to support that w/ their wallets or not.
If they didn't sell cosmetics the way they do, they wouldn't create as many.
If cosmetics weren't monthly exclusives, they wouldn't sell. You can't use them atm so they are useless. Unless a cosmetic was perfect to you, there is no reason for you to buy any until the game is released. This would mean less incentive for intrepid to release them at the rate they do which means less cosmetics.
Would you rather have 1 new cosmetic pack released each year but them being available for longer or monthly cosmetics, which means more options, but as monthly implies, they are only available that month.
To help you comprehend this, go look at each cosmetic that has been released on January every year and compare it to the full catalog. Would you rather only be able to buy the January cosmetics or can you see that if you wait, there is a decent chance that out of the 11 other packs released this year, at least one will probably appeal to you?
If you are upset that you missed a cosmetic you like, you should assume that it probably wouldn't exist if they didn't sell them the way they do.
For me, i prefer the larger volume. Even if i miss something, something better will come in the future.
That's kind of the point though, isn't it?
Either the game is funded and the cosmetics are purely for showing support or Intrepid has designed the store to maximize profits.
If it's the former then there's no real reason to keep cosmetics monthly and instead have them all be available as pre-order cosmetics to showcase that you supported development post-Kickstarter. If it's the latter then I understand why the store has been a cause of contention and why many have seen it and hesitated on the game b/c it does feel like a bit of a cash grab.
Come on man
However, there is literally no reason to think there wont be cosmetics that you like just as much, or even more, that will be available in-game.
I'm not overly concerned if no one else is bringing up the point of this being about pixels in a game that doesn't exist yet, that is still a point I am bringing up.
If people cant understand that they *need* food, they *need* water, they *need* oxygen, but they don't *need* Stuffertons, then someone needs to point that out to them. There is straight up no reason to fear missing out on a cosmetic for the game, because it straight up doesn't matter.
Being concerned you may miss out on a cosmetic in a game is as idiotic as claiming willful emotional manipulation is at play here.
I think this is beside the point as the quantity of cosmetics doesn't really effect giving a reward to those who supported the game pre-launch. I also think they can be both a way to bring in money to help offset costs and a way to reward those for supporting earlier on.
If you have concerns on the validity of the game, then please wait to see if the game gets completed before spending any money. If their plan is to scam you then them changing how their shop works wouldn't change that.
The argument in my original post was that the current system allows them to produce more cosmetics and so i asked, would you prefer getting less cosmetics but them being premaritally available or more but they are only available for a limited time?
That's not really for you to say. You can certainly think it's dumb but that doesn't mean other people can't value cosmetics...especially since Steven has frequently stated that he's aware that collecting them is a huge part of an MMO's gameplay and he intends for them to be a large part of AoC.
Yeah lol, I was gonna say... what?
@Noaani , the whole point of Intrepid doing this, is that they know these cosmetics mean something to a lot of people. Straight from Steven's mouth: He is straight up saying he is using artificial scarcity to incentivize sales. "Incentivize" of course has a positive connotation and "emotional manipulation" has a negative connotation, but in this specific context they pretty much mean the same thing.
Isn't it also emotional manipulation if they make something you think looks cool and would like to buy? they are manipulating you into wanting something by making it visually appealing to you.
As Noaani has pointed out, intrepid isn't selling anything you need. These aren't essential items, even in the context of the game. At the end of the day, you want this for selfish reasons and are using "emotional manipulation" to try to get them to give you what you want. You aren't just giving a subjective opinion on how you would prefer the shop to be implemented, you are accusing them of doing something negative ("emotioanl manipulation") and saying they should change because they are doing this negative thing.
I'm not saying people can't value cosmetics if they want to. I do find it stupid, and I consider it important to point out that in the grand scheme of things, it really, *really* doesn't matter.
However, the point I am making is that people can't value half a set with literally no knowledge of the remainder of that set. It straight up isn't possible to know what value you yourself place on any one cosmetic, until you know all available cosmetics.
There may well be a time where this argument has some validity to people that value cosmetics. However, that time isn't until we have a solid understanding of what cosmetics will be available in-game.