Artificial Scarcity and Emotional Manipulation

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Maezriel

Yea, it's called Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) and it's standard in near every business.

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.

Vhaeyne

You should factor in intent when trying to classify something as "Emotional Manipulation".

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.

Nerror

Vhaeyne wrote: »

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.

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.

Samson1

This is an interesting topic.. I personally think if a player is experiencing ‘FOMO’ (especially when it comes to Ashes of Creation), that’s a problem with the player. The responsibility does not fall upon Intrepid’s shoulders. It’s a ‘YOU’ problem. The company is not responsible for any anxiety a player may feel or depression they may develop because of their game designs or philosophies. It is on us as individuals to take control and ownership of our own thoughts, feelings and actions.

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:

Nerror wrote: »

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."

*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.

Vhaeyne

Nerror wrote: »

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."

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.

Nerror

Samson wrote: »

The company is not responsible for any anxiety a player may feel or depression they may develop because of their game designs or philosophies. It is on us as individuals to take control and ownership of our own thoughts, feelings and actions.

...

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.

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.

My main concern is actually not the influence on me directly (I'll probably be fine, even if I dislike the tactics), but more that it will likely unnecessarily hurt the game long term, IMO, and that will definitely suck. I want to be enjoying this game in 2028 too, with a large and active player base.

Nerror

Vhaeyne wrote: »

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.

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

Vhaeyne wrote: »

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.

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.

Vhaeyne

Nerror wrote: »

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.

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.

Nerror wrote: »

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 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.

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.

Noaani

Prince of Elsewhere wrote: »

emotionally manipulative.

Emotionally manipulative?

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.

Maezriel

Noaani wrote: »

Prince of Elsewhere wrote: »

emotionally manipulative.

Emotionally manipulative?

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.

maouw

The key word here is ARTIFICIAL scarcity. I'm fine with games having exclusives - but it really grinds my gears if the exclusivity cannot be justified except for greed.

Good Examples:

> exclusive items that can only be purchased pre-launch and won't be available post-launch: justified because the items commemorate the conception/development/birth of the game - which is not a recurring event and something of notable legacy.
> exclusive items that can only be acquired by defeating a major boss: justified because the items commemorate the skill employed by players to overcome a challenge set before them by the developers.

Bad Example:

> login streak incentives: not justified because they are exclusive for no other reason than to place pressure on my login behaviour - which under normal circumstances already has a regulator: logins regulated by my engagement with the game itself. NOT exclusive carrots-on-a-stick.

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.

Sathrago

I agree completely with @maouw on requiring a proper justification for artificial scarcity.

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.

Noaani

Maezriel wrote: »

You cannot make it to adulthood w/o seeing an advertisement that makes you feel something whether you attached those emotions yourself or not.

I would argue that you can not sustain being an adult if you are finding yourself in a state where you feel emotionally manipulated by artists impressions of skins for a game that hasn't been made.

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.

Vhaeyne

Noaani wrote: »

I would argue that you can not sustain being an adult if you are finding yourself in a state where you feel emotionally manipulated by artists impressions of skins for a game that hasn't been made.

Well said.

Maezriel wrote: »

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.

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.

Maezriel

Ho man, I didn't realize I was standing among such stoic giants.

"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.

Vhaeyne

Maezriel wrote: »

Ho man, I didn't realize I was standing among such stoic giants.

That put a smile on my face.

Maezriel wrote: »

"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.

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.

Maezriel wrote: »

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.

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...

Noaani

Maezriel wrote: »

Ho man, I didn't realize I was standing among such stoic giants.

If stoicism is now defined as not crying over pixels in a game that doesn't yet even exist, the world is in a bad place.

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.

Again, there is a difference between a company using FOMO, and a company saying "hey, if you want to support us, this is how you should do it. We will put up monthly cosmetics so if you want to support us often, you have something to show for it. If you don't want to support us, don't worry," there will be equitable cosmetics, both from a quantity and quality standpoint, [that] are achievable through in-game means".

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.

Maezriel

@Noaani No one besides you is saying anything about pixels though. What is being sold isn't the topic so much as how it's being sold.

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:

The store being a part of APOC when I really don't think it should've been
Not having any real knowledge of what's coming up until the last minute
No access to a la carte until after you've purchased a (fairly expensive) pack and,
When you purchase a cosmetic you don't show that you supported development, but that you did so on a specific month which is one level too deep for my personal taste

Jahlon

You can judge a company by the culmination of all their actions, not just the actions you want to cherry-pick and put into a vacuum.

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.

Maezriel

Jahlon wrote: »

You can judge a company by the culmination of all their actions, not just the actions you want to cherry-pick and put into a vacuum.

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.

Child Item