@JustVine - send an email to Ford explaining to them how unfair it is that they won’t make you a 1966 Mustang convertible because you weren’t there to buy one.
Maybe go to Best Buy to demand they give you the 2019 Black Friday discount in April 2022.
How about calling out ESPN’s predatory practices for not letting you watch the 1988 Olympic ping pong championship since others were able to watch it, and you couldn’t and can’t now?
The merchant provided goods on a limited time basis. It’s not their responsibility to manage your disappointment for not participating.
Honestly, why is this such an issue to digest?
5
Options
RokoMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Most games make a ton of NPC assets that the players can never wear or ride on. At least intrepid is making it possible for some players to use some of the assets intended for NPC and quest content.
Would I prefer if they were all achievable in game and not purchased? Yes.
But unfortunately the world we live in allows them to monetize it. And like many here (this topic has been beaten to death and back for years) I am willing to put up with it because it's the better alternative to not having a game like ashes in the world.
@JustVine - send an email to Ford explaining to them how unfair it is that they won’t make you a 1966 Mustang convertible because you weren’t there to buy one.
Maybe go to Best Buy to demand they give you the 2019 Black Friday discount in April 2022.
How about calling out ESPN’s predatory practices for not letting you watch the 1988 Olympic ping pong championship since others were able to watch it, and you couldn’t and can’t now?
The merchant provided goods on a limited time basis. It’s not their responsibility to manage your disappointment for not participating.
Honestly, why is this such an issue to digest?
Physical products and in person activities are so starkly different from digital products I have trouble taking this comment seriously.
OP is pretty reasonably frustrated that a digital item they would have bought is no longer being sold, not because Intrepid ran out of it or because it was genuinely constricted via time, but because they simply chose to retire cosmetics monthly.
Ford can’t pop out a 1966 Mustang at will, mostly because manufacturers just don’t make those parts anymore.
Sales aren’t products so I don’t know where you’re going with that one.
Events only happen on certain days. We don’t have time machines, so there’s no way to offer the same experience again no matter how much they try.
If I sell a digital product, I still have all the “parts” aka files. The product does not go bad, barring data corruption which is rare these days given how many backup files you can store on just a portable HD from the store. There’s nothing stopping me from offering the product again exactly as it was the day I first sold it, with no additional cost to me besides time spent sending out the files. With a delivery system set up, I don’t even have to lose that time.
So yes, it’s fine to like exclusivity and be willing to pay more than the item’s actually worth for that exclusivity, but let’s all stop pretending it’s an attack on Intrepid’s whole business when someone says it kind of sucks they’re limiting these items when there’s nothing to necessitate it.
Again, my primary assumption for why they’re limited is because they don’t want many people to have these otherwise-NPC-only looks. For me that’s enough justification. It’s not enough for everyone, nor would I expect it to be.
You can absolutely apply the same product practices between physical and digital products. Here’s the break down of my three examples:
1) you missed out on the production and sales timeframe of a product, yet you want that product because
2) you missed out on qualifying for the sale terms of a product, yet you want that product with those terms because
3) you missed out on a limited time service that can’t be resold by those that didn’t miss out (just in case that was a variable), yet you want that experience because
All of these are applicable to a digital product, and the terms by which that product is sold, marketed, distributed, or experienced. Furthermore, the merchant is not obligated, or responsible to meet any of the ‘yet’ demands in any way.
Game societal acquisitions went from uniformed bis gear, to uniformed costumes, to nfts. The uniformed bis gear was western but repetitive. Uniformed costumes were eastern and limited.
We should have uniformed bis gear (unique items) and varied costumes both limited (purchased) and unlimited (In game) in AoC. Be thankful we have western devs who love eastern creations, rather than eastern devs who love western money.
It's sad to see that for OP and for some people, the price of exclusivity can be so unbearable.
I get it. I just found out about this game not long ago. I missed out on some stuff. Stinks but it is what it is. Not the first game to sell exclusive items for pre-purchase or deluxe or ultimate editions and so on. While "exclusive" has not value to me in a game I cannot ask a company to devalue items some other person values because it is exclusive.
Not a big deal in long term. They will have to keep making stuff to sell so I want to buy.
You can absolutely apply the same product practices between physical and digital products. Here’s the break down of my three examples:
1) you missed out on the production and sales timeframe of a product, yet you want that product because
2) you missed out on qualifying for the sale terms of a product, yet you want that product with those terms because
3) you missed out on a limited time service that can’t be resold by those that didn’t miss out (just in case that was a variable), yet you want that experience because
All of these are applicable to a digital product, and the terms by which that product is sold, marketed, distributed, or experienced. Furthermore, the merchant is not obligated, or responsible to meet any of the ‘yet’ demands in any way.
Yeah if you ignore everything about the production of a tangible good verses a digital good, then sure you can pretend they’re identical.
But most people know you can’t do that, so you still haven’t made any kind of point. Physical items may be scarce due to tangible, non-arbitrary reason. Digital items are made to be scarce arbitrarily. There’s no genuine reason aside from rare instances where every copy of the data files have been corrupted.
It's sad to see that for OP and for some people, the price of exclusivity can be so unbearable.
The main reason its hard to reconcile with OP is that he said he purposefully dint buy stuff because of something he imagined Intrepid is propagating, dint consult anyone, decided he was correct and now is complaining that he cant buy all that stuff. With this kind of backward ass logic how can you expect the community to take him seriously?
Just to be clear I can afford these cosmetics even monthly, but I don't buy them on principle.
...
Imagine you're a new player
If there is a new player, then ofc that new player has missed out on all the content since the start of the game till when he/she starts playing. Or does he expect Intrepid to reset the servers as well whenever a new player joins the server so that they can help build the world or spawn all the world bosses so that new players can participate in those events? There is no FOMO. It is all in his head.
@Caeryl MMOs are about world building. So @CROW3 arguments are perfectly valid. You cant go back in time and experience some event you would have like to, now can you? There is a reason MMO is a completely different genre than all the other genre of gaming. You cant just say "Oh, I want to do this!", restart the game and expect things to change just because.
Physical items may be scarce due to tangible, non-arbitrary reason. Digital items are made to be scarce arbitrarily.
It’s amusing when you attempt to say something axiomatically, but clearly have no knowledge about the subject.
Yes, you’re right - no tangible product has ever arbitrarily been made scarce and no digital product has ever been intentionally made scarce….
Well except any product anywhere at anytime with a supply chain impacted by weather, war, supplier capacity, carrier dysfunction, local politics, international politics, jurisdictional conflicts, proximity to a hack, or maybe random two week long traffic jams at major international ports.
Digital content is frequently intentionally limited in quantity. Think about digital books licensed to public libraries with limited check out inventory based on those contracts, digital music limited by tiered subscriptions, digital tickets purchase able by a single party, digital services that have fixed expirations like streams, rentals etc - intentional expirations - to govern their supply to manage demand and revenue…
I discussed this on the discord and it seems the majority of Ashes backers are against the idea of opening up shop, though I don't fully agree with OP and their suggestions I can't see why opening up cosmetics for individual purchase *henceforth* - I.E previous cosmetics remain exclusive to those purchasers - would be an issue.
I also think people are pushing the argument too hard about examples of trying to get access to things in the past. I think we should just write that off as it won't happen, which is how it should be. But there's no reason why prior backers should feel hard done by if *future* shop items are open to purchase.
My suggestion:
Going ahead, cosmetics don't require a "pack" to buy individually.
Alpha keys cannot be paid for individually, they still require a pack to be purchased.
Priced slightly higher than their proportional pack value to still incentivise packs, but be priced fairly.
I am not some personally bothered by the current cosmetics cosmetic model as I usually don't buy shop items, but I can understand why people might wish to support the game without having to break bank - i.e. having lower entry options available to support the game. I might be more obliged to dump a more nominal amount into the game given that I cannot personally financially commit to that amount - and I would suspect there will be a reasonable demograph that fits this description.
Edit: For Clarity - my suggestion is not to change the current method of cosmetics only being available during the month that they are on sale, compromising the promises made in the past by Steven/Intrepid. Only to allow people to purchase cosmetics individually without requiring a larger pack purchase initially to "unlock" individual sales, which is currently how it is.
0
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I discussed this on the discord and it seems the majority of Ashes backers are against the idea of opening up shop, though I don't fully agree with OP and their suggestions I can't see why opening up cosmetics for individual purchase *henceforth* - I.E previous cosmetics remain exclusive to those purchasers - would be an issue.
Because keeping one's word is very very important. If they start going back on what they say this early on what else can they choose to ignore? XP potions in the store? Perhaps a level boost now and again?
Character and integrity are way to important and in far to short supply at this point in history.
The Cosmetic store enables players to purchase Cosmetics for use in Ashes of Creation.[3] The cosmetic store offers limited time, limited quantity items to help sustain game development.[4]
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
Because keeping one's word is very very important. If they start going back on what they say this early on what else can they choose to ignore? XP potions in the store? Perhaps a level boost now and again?
Character and integrity are way to important and in far to short supply at this point in history.
The Cosmetic store enables players to purchase Cosmetics for use in Ashes of Creation.[3] The cosmetic store offers limited time, limited quantity items to help sustain game development.[4]
Fixed the quote a bit.
So I agree with your statement completely. But can you just highlight which part of specifically my statement compromises that? My suggestion to allow future shop items would not take away any exclusivity for purchases of the prior packs. So still at a loss here as to why opening doors for future packs would be an issue?
It honestly sounds like we agree with the same point, and my suggestion shouldn't in any way get in the way with that.
0
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Because keeping one's word is very very important. If they start going back on what they say this early on what else can they choose to ignore? XP potions in the store? Perhaps a level boost now and again?
Character and integrity are way to important and in far to short supply at this point in history.
The Cosmetic store enables players to purchase Cosmetics for use in Ashes of Creation.[3] The cosmetic store offers limited time, limited quantity items to help sustain game development.[4]
Fixed the quote a bit.
So I agree with your statement completely. But can you just highlight which part of specifically my statement compromises that? My suggestion to allow future shop items would not take away any exclusivity for purchases of the prior packs. So still at a loss here as to why opening doors for future packs would be an issue?
It honestly sounds like we agree with the same point, and my suggestion shouldn't in any way get in the way with that.
Sure.
Going back on their word and changing it from what they said:"The cosmetic store offers limited time, limited quantity items." to anything else would mean their word has no meaning at all going forward. While I understand the consumerist view that they should be allowed to buy what ever they want. I think Intrepid keeping their word is far more important. Missteps have been made in the passed and it has already cost them with the community. Further missteps of this nature will have compounding effects. Allowing future shop items to be forever open goes against the spirit and intent of what they have said and would be seen as a betrayal of their word. At the end of the day that is all we really have. Their word. If it is meaningless and then they have nothing left.
We have all seen products we thought would be good but the developers word turned out to be meaningless. This didn't happen overnight but over time as they compromised themselves on the little things until what they promised was no longer even possible. I think the little things like this will lead to bigger failures in the future. If we as the community cannot trust them to keep their word on the little things can we trust them on the bigger things?
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
Sure.
Going back on their word and changing it from what they said:"The cosmetic store offers limited time, limited quantity items." to anything else would mean their word has no meaning at all going forward. While I understand the consumerist view that they should be allowed to buy what ever they want. I think Intrepid keeping their word is far more important. Missteps have been made in the passed and it has already cost them with the community. Further missteps of this nature will have compounding effects. Allowing future shop items to be forever open goes against the spirit and intent of what they have said and would be seen as a betrayal of their word. At the end of the day that is all we really have. Their word. If it is meaningless and then they have nothing left.
We have all seen products we thought would be good but the developers word turned out to be meaningless. This didn't happen overnight but over time as they compromised themselves on the little things until what they promised was no longer even possible. I think the little things like this will lead to bigger failures in the future. If we as the community cannot trust them to keep their word on the little things can we trust them on the bigger things?
Aha - okay I may not have been entirely clear on one part of my statement but I still agree with what you are saying.
So my suggestion is not to have future monthly packs remain on the shop any further than they currently do.
I would suggest that they continue the monthly cosmetics being up and available in their usual capacity - no change to that - limited and all.
My change would be to make it so that the individual cosmetics do not require a purchase of a larger bundle to "unlock" purchasing the individual cosmetics. That using myself as an example, if I wanted to buy something from the April pack, in April - then I can for example pay £20 for some cosmetic armour provided I buy within the allotted available time period.
I hope that clears things up. Given that we aren't so far aligned, how would you feel about this change?
Physical items may be scarce due to tangible, non-arbitrary reason. Digital items are made to be scarce arbitrarily.
It’s amusing when you attempt to say something axiomatically, but clearly have no knowledge about the subject.
Yes, you’re right - no tangible product has ever arbitrarily been made scarce and no digital product has ever been intentionally made scarce….
Well except any product anywhere at anytime with a supply chain impacted by weather, war, supplier capacity, carrier dysfunction, local politics, international politics, jurisdictional conflicts, proximity to a hack, or maybe random two week long traffic jams at major international ports.
Digital content is frequently intentionally limited in quantity. Think about digital books licensed to public libraries with limited check out inventory based on those contracts digital music limited by tiered subscriptions digital tickets purchase able by a single party, digital services that have fixed expirations like streams, rentals etc - intentional expirations - to govern their supply to manage demand and revenue…
…Do you actually know what “arbitrary” means? Because you’re stating that companies create a false sense scarcity to drive sales, while also claiming that the scarcity isn’t arbitrary. The choice to make it scarce without any point of production justifying a scarcity is what makes it arbitrary, a whim, intentional. “There’s no reason I would have to, I just want to limit it” kind of decision.
What part of that quoted statement do you take fault with exactly? Because you repeated that companies will artificially restrict sales on digital items without cause, which is the whole issue I presented.
Tangible products have an actual production cost for each individual item. They use physical materials that may be rare or require skills difficult to find. There are many reasons the sale of a tangible product might be restricted that are not arbitrary. Any new tangible item incurs new costs.
Digital items aren't like that. Once it’s produced, it’s been produced, and can be freely duplicated at will of the company for sale without incurring any new costs. The designer’s long since been paid, the animator long since paid, the 3D modeler long since paid. Where do you think a production cost is factoring in here that would necessitate a scarcity? Genuinely, where is it?
I already said in my first post that while it is undeniably a FOMO tactic to limit availability on a digital item, I think the way Intrepid has done it so far is forgivable and their reasons, while still arbitrary and chosen out of their own personal preference rather than any particular cost necessitating it, are understandable to me. If it weren’t for you and others being a jerk to OP simply for being frustrated by these marketing tactics, I’d have been happy to leave it well enough alone. Alas, you are, so here I am. For some reason talking through the basics of production costs on the internet when I know you’ll ignore 90% of it anyway.
It's sad to see that for OP and for some people, the price of exclusivity can be so unbearable.
The main reason its hard to reconcile with OP is that he said he purposefully dint buy stuff because of something he imagined Intrepid is propagating, dint consult anyone, decided he was correct and now is complaining that he cant buy all that stuff. With this kind of backward ass logic how can you expect the community to take him seriously?
Just to be clear I can afford these cosmetics even monthly, but I don't buy them on principle.
...
Imagine you're a new player
If there is a new player, then ofc that new player has missed out on all the content since the start of the game till when he/she starts playing. Or does he expect Intrepid to reset the servers as well whenever a new player joins the server so that they can help build the world or spawn all the world bosses so that new players can participate in those events? There is no FOMO. It is all in his head.
@/Caeryl MMOs are about world building. So @/CROW3 arguments are perfectly valid. You cant go back in time and experience some event you would have like to, now can you? There is a reason MMO is a completely different genre than all the other genre of gaming. You cant just say "Oh, I want to do this!", restart the game and expect things to change just because.
Event-based items awarded for event participation are not the same as “here’s money, give pixel” transactions that don’t even occur in the game world itself.
Event-based items awarded for event participation are not the same as “here’s money, give pixel” transactions that don’t even occur in the game world itself.
Bruh then treat them as monthly events and its open for everyone to participate in and buy stuff. But now that event is over. Move on.
Look at this from this perspective then - OP said he has a principle cuz of which he did whatever. What happened to that principle now? Why is he complaining? He cant even stand by his own principles? It just showcases his immaturity.
Not everything is about money. Intrepid has principles too which they stand by.
PS: All my comments are only for packs already released and which cannot be bought anymore, for which certain promises were made. Change in policy by IS for future packs is their prerogative.
If u find an external bug and help fix it, you could receive older cosmetics as a reward. However, the selection is at the discretion of the actual technical teams and naturally not all are offered.
@JustVine - send an email to Ford explaining to them how unfair it is that they won’t make you a 1966 Mustang convertible because you weren’t there to buy one.
Maybe go to Best Buy to demand they give you the 2019 Black Friday discount in April 2022.
How about calling out ESPN’s predatory practices for not letting you watch the 1988 Olympic ping pong championship since others were able to watch it, and you couldn’t and can’t now?
The merchant provided goods on a limited time basis. It’s not their responsibility to manage your disappointment for not participating.
Honestly, why is this such an issue to digest?
Physical products and in person activities are so starkly different from digital products I have trouble taking this comment seriously.
OP is pretty reasonably frustrated that a digital item they would have bought is no longer being sold, not because Intrepid ran out of it or because it was genuinely constricted via time, but because they simply chose to retire cosmetics monthly.
Ford can’t pop out a 1966 Mustang at will, mostly because manufacturers just don’t make those parts anymore.
Sales aren’t products so I don’t know where you’re going with that one.
Events only happen on certain days. We don’t have time machines, so there’s no way to offer the same experience again no matter how much they try.
If I sell a digital product, I still have all the “parts” aka files. The product does not go bad, barring data corruption which is rare these days given how many backup files you can store on just a portable HD from the store. There’s nothing stopping me from offering the product again exactly as it was the day I first sold it, with no additional cost to me besides time spent sending out the files. With a delivery system set up, I don’t even have to lose that time.
So yes, it’s fine to like exclusivity and be willing to pay more than the item’s actually worth for that exclusivity, but let’s all stop pretending it’s an attack on Intrepid’s whole business when someone says it kind of sucks they’re limiting these items when there’s nothing to necessitate it.
Again, my primary assumption for why they’re limited is because they don’t want many people to have these otherwise-NPC-only looks. For me that’s enough justification. It’s not enough for everyone, nor would I expect it to be.
I would just like to update my statement, Unknown was kind enough to spare some time to explain something I wasn't 100% knowing of, which is about the status the prior Kickstarter purchases give, as well as bundles. There was an image which made it pretty clear for me:
Each packages comes with a level of access to future individual items. The higher the package, the more items you have access to. The information I was missing before in my own understanding was that the prior KS backer packages had differing amounts you had to put down to get access to different levels of individual item access.
The current bundles available do the same too (which you can upgrade from package to package if you so wish - I did know this much).
I think that knowing that people backed under the proviso that they would have a certain level of access to individual items, does lead me to retract my statement about giving all players access to individual items. Hopefully people check out this little infograph as I think it ought to be more widely seen as it helped clear some bits up for me and might do so for you as well.
One last thing I would like to state is, Steven mentioned in one of the updates that he spent around $700 for an item (pet afaik) as it was ultra rare and then some 2-3 weeks later it was made readily available for everyone via some event. This really REALLY put him off.
So regardless of everything here, anyone agreeing or disagreeing with this policy, the cosmetic shop is not gonna change. As simple as that.
Digital items aren't like that. Once it’s produced, it’s been produced, and can be freely duplicated at will of the company for sale without incurring any new costs. The designer’s long since been paid, the animator long since paid, the 3D modeler long since paid. Where do you think a production cost is factoring in here that would necessitate a scarcity? Genuinely, where is it?
Some digital products once produced can be freely duplicated. If they are wholly owned by the company. If the artist was contracted, reproduction of a digital asset may have tiered royalty fees.
But acting as if this is representative of all digital products would be inaccurate. Stating that physical and digital product practices are entirely different was also inaccurate - hence the discussion.
The net of these numerous FOMO conversations come down to the same basic root cause:
- For good or ill, IS took a position on the monthly cosmetics shop, which has set an obligation to those customers that bought into the agreement
- The digital items in the shop are available based on the terms of that agreement
- Those folks who want something no longer available complain about FOMO because they want something but don’t understand or agree with the terms above
Queue the community response.
My consistent response in each of these threads is to help those folks see their part in creating and owning their FOMO (because it is their’s to own), instead of blindly assuming that responsibility falls to the merchant - as if something is being done to them.
I’m sure we’ll dance the same steps after next month’s update too. Just let me know what color you want to wear. 😉
1
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Right but you could just, stop making new things exclusive and keep exclusivity for old stuff....
Then it loses all value and there is no reason to continue. Since you can't use the items, if it's not exclusive, then there is no reason to buy it. You would wait until you can play the game to buy what you want to play with.
Would you rather have the monthly option or no option at all?
I don't see how it has no value. You are preordering a product. You will receive a product. You will be supporting the game
It currently has no value because you can't use it. If they removed the limited availability, then there is no reason to buy a skin until the game is released since you can't use it now and you don't know what is coming in the future. Once the game is released, you would be able to view the full catalog and buy the skin you want to use.
Why would you buy something you can't use now when something you like more might come before you can use it?
@JustVine - send an email to Ford explaining to them how unfair it is that they won’t make you a 1966 Mustang convertible because you weren’t there to buy one.
Maybe go to Best Buy to demand they give you the 2019 Black Friday discount in April 2022.
How about calling out ESPN’s predatory practices for not letting you watch the 1988 Olympic ping pong championship since others were able to watch it, and you couldn’t and can’t now?
The merchant provided goods on a limited time basis. It’s not their responsibility to manage your disappointment for not participating.
Honestly, why is this such an issue to digest?
I don't find any of your examples invalid for a customer to do. It just won't get them anywhere because, the things in question aren't usually profitable. People did the same for new coke. And the customer was right, so they fixed it.
In AoC's case, otoh, they explicitly have stated they don't need the money. So if people are demanding it so they can feel included/get something they would actually like in support rather than whatever scrap is nearest available, I see no reason to not change policy on future products.
Unless they do need the money. In which case they obviously know their bottom line best, but I highly suspect given the pent up interest that it'd be more profitable in the long run. Margaret is really the only person who would have the best data on that though.
If they do need the money, though, it's kind of weird for them to keep saying they don't. So I don't suspect that is the case. Extra bonus money from a change in policy that doesn't effect past promises otoh is a weird thing for a corporation to pass up.
So what is the real argument for the continued policy here?
'That's how it is and they are under no obligation to change it?' Sure but customers are under no obligation to not complain about a decision they disagree with when they aren't given a better reason than 'because I said so' either.
'They promised exclusivity!' Yes but changing the policy wouldn't involve breaking the existing promises. It would only apply to future content.
'They need the extra money generated by their current tactic!' They continue to reject the need for money so you would be arguing against the merchant's own word.
I don't find any of your examples invalid for a customer to do. It just won't get them anywhere because, the things in question aren't usually profitable.
Oh, agreed that it’s completely possible for a consumer to do those things - and also agree that it’ll result in a dead end. Any consumer expectation that the merchant has a responsibility to address those requests is completely misplaced. Looking back, I may have read into that more than intended from your earlier post, if so - apologies.
People did the same for new coke. And the customer was right, so they fixed it.
Sorta. New Coke is a text book product launch debacle. Ultimately, consumers just didn’t buy it, leading to a complete upside down position for the product. ‘They fixed it,’ by ‘relaunching’ Classic a few months later. But the new Coke (Coke II) brand was an utter failure. I’m glad they didn’t make the same mistake with Coke Zero.
In AoC's case, otoh, they explicitly have stated they don't need the money. So if people are demanding it so they can feel included/get something they would actually like in support rather than whatever scrap is nearest available, I see no reason to not change policy on future products.
Unless they do need the money. In which case they obviously know their bottom line best, but I highly suspect given the pent up interest that it'd be more profitable in the long run. Margaret is really the only person who would have the best data on that though.
If they do need the money, though, it's kind of weird for them to keep saying they don't. So I don't suspect that is the case. Extra bonus money from a change in policy that doesn't effect past promises otoh is a weird thing for a corporation to pass up.
Maybe? Idk - I have no interest speculating on Steven’s money. It’s his money, and he’ll operate accordingly. To Bloodprophet’s point above, IS learned the hard way about backing away from stated positions to customers. At this point in their development and customer growth, integrity is a huge factor (and a big liability if compromised).
So what is the real argument for the continued policy here?
For where we are today, I’d just point to the quotes folks linked from Steven. I think it’s an important retrospective question though, was that hard line the best direction? Did it paint them into having to take an inflexible position? Idk.
Sure but customers are under no obligation to not complain about a decision they disagree with when they aren't given a better reason than 'because I said so' either.
Fine, but I think it’s also reasonable to expect some push back on those complaints.
'They promised exclusivity!' Yes but changing the policy wouldn't involve breaking the existing promises. It would only apply to future content.
Well, unless you argue that buying into a tier granted future exclusive access to items that wouldn’t be generally available, and that exclusivity was a portion of what they purchased. If you bought into jelly of the month club in January to have exclusive access to artisanal jellies not available to the everyday consumer, and then in June all of the jellies are just open to whomever a la carte, the terms of that January contract may have been violated.
What’s odd to me is any sense of either ‘something has been done to me’ or ‘I want this and you should provide it to me’ - which is wrapped into this concept of FOMO.
The net of these numerous FOMO conversations come down to the same basic root cause:
- For good or ill, IS took a position on the monthly cosmetics shop, which has set an obligation to those customers that bought into the agreement
- The digital items in the shop are available based on the terms of that agreement
- Those folks who want something no longer available complain about FOMO because they want something but don’t understand or agree with the terms above
Queue the community response.
My consistent response in each of these threads is to help those folks see their part in creating and owning their FOMO (because it is their’s to own), instead of blindly assuming that responsibility falls to the merchant - as if something is being done to them.
Bolded the relevant parts because you are so close to getting it. The whole point is that FOMO tactics are chosen by the merchant selling a digital item, thus making it their responsibility – it’s not an assumption when Steven clearly said the purpose of the limited availability is to make them more appealing products. And people don’t like FOMO tactics because they are, by design, manipulative.
I don’t think in this case it’s malicious, but the same way accidentally bumping into someone doesn’t negate the bruises just because it was an accident, FOMO is still manipulative to some extent regardless of intent. Since we are the customers, we’re well within our boundaries to express displeasure or frustration at those tactics.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
People buying into the support tiers based on exclusivity is as much of a joke as the people who want access to promised locked content. You buy tiers because you want to support, or access to early access level/the cosmetics of that month. If Steven ever said something like that, it isn't a promise, it's apologetics for his world view on what he percieves is product value.
[Philosophical_thought_experiment]
If an mmo is sub only, it's content is exclusive to paying customers. The company can say they have exclusive access to the cash shop. They can also change their subscription model to free to play at any time and not get sued for violating verbally promised exclusivity when suddenly f2p members gave access to the cash shop. (I am not a lawyer, so feel free to completely dismantle my opinion with your much more valid legal opinion if you are a lawyer and want to. I am only speaking from my business law knowledge.)
Similarly Louis Vuitton can make as many damn purses as it wants (albeit probably ruin it's share value because rich people want a way to signal they aren't poor.) Same principle. Why? Because you aren't entitled to exclusivity as part of a payment model. If he changed future purchasing parameters, I really doubt he will get sued for something that loose, and he would have every right to change it as far as I know as a merchant. Your only power there is voting with your wallet and social pressure. Just like in the situation we are in now but in favor of way more potential customers.
[/Philosophical_thought_experiment]
I admit given the quotes from Unknown that given Steven's stance it probably won't change unless Margaret talks him out of it if it is even possible. But Margaret can only argue against it if there is enough outcry. So yes people should complain that they want the limited recipe of policy change I proposed and separately what Jahlon has proposed in the past relative to alacart buying options for cosmetics.
We both agree arguing for past content to become available to all is both a nonstarter (socially and legally even if it won't hold up well in court it will certainly cause deeper legal proceedings to go further) and bogus entitlement.
I personally think putting huge monetary gates on a costume to make two people have different costumes at a party is a stupid (and bourgeoisie) way of solving the problem. Having enough options of some average standard of quality such that personal expression is the deciding factor is a much better solution. You can guess from my arguments that I loathe status symbols as a concept. And you would be right, I don't think they are acceptable culture in videogames. Keeping irl economic status minimized is one of the reasons I support subscription and true f2p models. Whether or not the market accepts such culture is up to people's wallets and social pressure.
Why am I arguing so vehemently against this practice? The longer Steven's version of exclusivity is kept as a guiding principle in this games culture, the less likely changing to a model of acceptable price values for content is in the long run after launch. Nothing will socially stop IS from having exclusive whale catching outfits at 30-50$ a pop, l since by then a good chunk of the fan base will be trained to accept it and will have whiny whales aggressively pushing back against any change. Because while it isn't a legal promise it will be a social one like LV's at that point. And then we are stuck with a dumb purchasing system for good. I think that's a dumb and boring direction for AoC's cash shop to go.
P.S. (And no I don't think exclusive costumes via large economic barriers are p2w to all you people who might be thinking I consider having the best costumes winning. I just think it is consumer unfriendly.)
Comments
Maybe go to Best Buy to demand they give you the 2019 Black Friday discount in April 2022.
How about calling out ESPN’s predatory practices for not letting you watch the 1988 Olympic ping pong championship since others were able to watch it, and you couldn’t and can’t now?
The merchant provided goods on a limited time basis. It’s not their responsibility to manage your disappointment for not participating.
Honestly, why is this such an issue to digest?
Would I prefer if they were all achievable in game and not purchased? Yes.
But unfortunately the world we live in allows them to monetize it. And like many here (this topic has been beaten to death and back for years) I am willing to put up with it because it's the better alternative to not having a game like ashes in the world.
Life is about compromise.
Physical products and in person activities are so starkly different from digital products I have trouble taking this comment seriously.
OP is pretty reasonably frustrated that a digital item they would have bought is no longer being sold, not because Intrepid ran out of it or because it was genuinely constricted via time, but because they simply chose to retire cosmetics monthly.
Ford can’t pop out a 1966 Mustang at will, mostly because manufacturers just don’t make those parts anymore.
Sales aren’t products so I don’t know where you’re going with that one.
Events only happen on certain days. We don’t have time machines, so there’s no way to offer the same experience again no matter how much they try.
If I sell a digital product, I still have all the “parts” aka files. The product does not go bad, barring data corruption which is rare these days given how many backup files you can store on just a portable HD from the store. There’s nothing stopping me from offering the product again exactly as it was the day I first sold it, with no additional cost to me besides time spent sending out the files. With a delivery system set up, I don’t even have to lose that time.
So yes, it’s fine to like exclusivity and be willing to pay more than the item’s actually worth for that exclusivity, but let’s all stop pretending it’s an attack on Intrepid’s whole business when someone says it kind of sucks they’re limiting these items when there’s nothing to necessitate it.
Again, my primary assumption for why they’re limited is because they don’t want many people to have these otherwise-NPC-only looks. For me that’s enough justification. It’s not enough for everyone, nor would I expect it to be.
1) you missed out on the production and sales timeframe of a product, yet you want that product because
2) you missed out on qualifying for the sale terms of a product, yet you want that product with those terms because
3) you missed out on a limited time service that can’t be resold by those that didn’t miss out (just in case that was a variable), yet you want that experience because
All of these are applicable to a digital product, and the terms by which that product is sold, marketed, distributed, or experienced. Furthermore, the merchant is not obligated, or responsible to meet any of the ‘yet’ demands in any way.
We should have uniformed bis gear (unique items) and varied costumes both limited (purchased) and unlimited (In game) in AoC. Be thankful we have western devs who love eastern creations, rather than eastern devs who love western money.
P.s. be thankful for no nfts too.
Aren't we all sinners?
I get it. I just found out about this game not long ago. I missed out on some stuff. Stinks but it is what it is. Not the first game to sell exclusive items for pre-purchase or deluxe or ultimate editions and so on. While "exclusive" has not value to me in a game I cannot ask a company to devalue items some other person values because it is exclusive.
Not a big deal in long term. They will have to keep making stuff to sell so I want to buy.
Yeah if you ignore everything about the production of a tangible good verses a digital good, then sure you can pretend they’re identical.
But most people know you can’t do that, so you still haven’t made any kind of point. Physical items may be scarce due to tangible, non-arbitrary reason. Digital items are made to be scarce arbitrarily. There’s no genuine reason aside from rare instances where every copy of the data files have been corrupted.
If there is a new player, then ofc that new player has missed out on all the content since the start of the game till when he/she starts playing. Or does he expect Intrepid to reset the servers as well whenever a new player joins the server so that they can help build the world or spawn all the world bosses so that new players can participate in those events? There is no FOMO. It is all in his head.
@Caeryl MMOs are about world building. So @CROW3 arguments are perfectly valid. You cant go back in time and experience some event you would have like to, now can you? There is a reason MMO is a completely different genre than all the other genre of gaming. You cant just say "Oh, I want to do this!", restart the game and expect things to change just because.
It’s amusing when you attempt to say something axiomatically, but clearly have no knowledge about the subject.
Yes, you’re right - no tangible product has ever arbitrarily been made scarce and no digital product has ever been intentionally made scarce….
Well except any product anywhere at anytime with a supply chain impacted by weather, war, supplier capacity, carrier dysfunction, local politics, international politics, jurisdictional conflicts, proximity to a hack, or maybe random two week long traffic jams at major international ports.
Digital content is frequently intentionally limited in quantity. Think about digital books licensed to public libraries with limited check out inventory based on those contracts, digital music limited by tiered subscriptions, digital tickets purchase able by a single party, digital services that have fixed expirations like streams, rentals etc - intentional expirations - to govern their supply to manage demand and revenue…
I also think people are pushing the argument too hard about examples of trying to get access to things in the past. I think we should just write that off as it won't happen, which is how it should be. But there's no reason why prior backers should feel hard done by if *future* shop items are open to purchase.
My suggestion:
Going ahead, cosmetics don't require a "pack" to buy individually.
Alpha keys cannot be paid for individually, they still require a pack to be purchased.
Priced slightly higher than their proportional pack value to still incentivise packs, but be priced fairly.
I am not some personally bothered by the current cosmetics cosmetic model as I usually don't buy shop items, but I can understand why people might wish to support the game without having to break bank - i.e. having lower entry options available to support the game. I might be more obliged to dump a more nominal amount into the game given that I cannot personally financially commit to that amount - and I would suspect there will be a reasonable demograph that fits this description.
Edit: For Clarity - my suggestion is not to change the current method of cosmetics only being available during the month that they are on sale, compromising the promises made in the past by Steven/Intrepid. Only to allow people to purchase cosmetics individually without requiring a larger pack purchase initially to "unlock" individual sales, which is currently how it is.
Fixed the quote a bit.
So I agree with your statement completely. But can you just highlight which part of specifically my statement compromises that? My suggestion to allow future shop items would not take away any exclusivity for purchases of the prior packs. So still at a loss here as to why opening doors for future packs would be an issue?
It honestly sounds like we agree with the same point, and my suggestion shouldn't in any way get in the way with that.
Sure.
Going back on their word and changing it from what they said:"The cosmetic store offers limited time, limited quantity items." to anything else would mean their word has no meaning at all going forward. While I understand the consumerist view that they should be allowed to buy what ever they want. I think Intrepid keeping their word is far more important. Missteps have been made in the passed and it has already cost them with the community. Further missteps of this nature will have compounding effects. Allowing future shop items to be forever open goes against the spirit and intent of what they have said and would be seen as a betrayal of their word. At the end of the day that is all we really have. Their word. If it is meaningless and then they have nothing left.
We have all seen products we thought would be good but the developers word turned out to be meaningless. This didn't happen overnight but over time as they compromised themselves on the little things until what they promised was no longer even possible. I think the little things like this will lead to bigger failures in the future. If we as the community cannot trust them to keep their word on the little things can we trust them on the bigger things?
Aha - okay I may not have been entirely clear on one part of my statement but I still agree with what you are saying.
So my suggestion is not to have future monthly packs remain on the shop any further than they currently do.
I would suggest that they continue the monthly cosmetics being up and available in their usual capacity - no change to that - limited and all.
My change would be to make it so that the individual cosmetics do not require a purchase of a larger bundle to "unlock" purchasing the individual cosmetics. That using myself as an example, if I wanted to buy something from the April pack, in April - then I can for example pay £20 for some cosmetic armour provided I buy within the allotted available time period.
I hope that clears things up. Given that we aren't so far aligned, how would you feel about this change?
…Do you actually know what “arbitrary” means? Because you’re stating that companies create a false sense scarcity to drive sales, while also claiming that the scarcity isn’t arbitrary. The choice to make it scarce without any point of production justifying a scarcity is what makes it arbitrary, a whim, intentional. “There’s no reason I would have to, I just want to limit it” kind of decision.
What part of that quoted statement do you take fault with exactly? Because you repeated that companies will artificially restrict sales on digital items without cause, which is the whole issue I presented.
Tangible products have an actual production cost for each individual item. They use physical materials that may be rare or require skills difficult to find. There are many reasons the sale of a tangible product might be restricted that are not arbitrary. Any new tangible item incurs new costs.
Digital items aren't like that. Once it’s produced, it’s been produced, and can be freely duplicated at will of the company for sale without incurring any new costs. The designer’s long since been paid, the animator long since paid, the 3D modeler long since paid. Where do you think a production cost is factoring in here that would necessitate a scarcity? Genuinely, where is it?
I already said in my first post that while it is undeniably a FOMO tactic to limit availability on a digital item, I think the way Intrepid has done it so far is forgivable and their reasons, while still arbitrary and chosen out of their own personal preference rather than any particular cost necessitating it, are understandable to me. If it weren’t for you and others being a jerk to OP simply for being frustrated by these marketing tactics, I’d have been happy to leave it well enough alone. Alas, you are, so here I am. For some reason talking through the basics of production costs on the internet when I know you’ll ignore 90% of it anyway.
Event-based items awarded for event participation are not the same as “here’s money, give pixel” transactions that don’t even occur in the game world itself.
Look at this from this perspective then - OP said he has a principle cuz of which he did whatever. What happened to that principle now? Why is he complaining? He cant even stand by his own principles? It just showcases his immaturity.
Not everything is about money. Intrepid has principles too which they stand by.
PS: All my comments are only for packs already released and which cannot be bought anymore, for which certain promises were made. Change in policy by IS for future packs is their prerogative.
Thank you for understanding.
Each packages comes with a level of access to future individual items. The higher the package, the more items you have access to. The information I was missing before in my own understanding was that the prior KS backer packages had differing amounts you had to put down to get access to different levels of individual item access.
The current bundles available do the same too (which you can upgrade from package to package if you so wish - I did know this much).
I think that knowing that people backed under the proviso that they would have a certain level of access to individual items, does lead me to retract my statement about giving all players access to individual items. Hopefully people check out this little infograph as I think it ought to be more widely seen as it helped clear some bits up for me and might do so for you as well.
So regardless of everything here, anyone agreeing or disagreeing with this policy, the cosmetic shop is not gonna change. As simple as that.
Some digital products once produced can be freely duplicated. If they are wholly owned by the company. If the artist was contracted, reproduction of a digital asset may have tiered royalty fees.
But acting as if this is representative of all digital products would be inaccurate. Stating that physical and digital product practices are entirely different was also inaccurate - hence the discussion.
The net of these numerous FOMO conversations come down to the same basic root cause:
- For good or ill, IS took a position on the monthly cosmetics shop, which has set an obligation to those customers that bought into the agreement
- The digital items in the shop are available based on the terms of that agreement
- Those folks who want something no longer available complain about FOMO because they want something but don’t understand or agree with the terms above
Queue the community response.
My consistent response in each of these threads is to help those folks see their part in creating and owning their FOMO (because it is their’s to own), instead of blindly assuming that responsibility falls to the merchant - as if something is being done to them.
I’m sure we’ll dance the same steps after next month’s update too. Just let me know what color you want to wear. 😉
It currently has no value because you can't use it. If they removed the limited availability, then there is no reason to buy a skin until the game is released since you can't use it now and you don't know what is coming in the future. Once the game is released, you would be able to view the full catalog and buy the skin you want to use.
Why would you buy something you can't use now when something you like more might come before you can use it?
I don't find any of your examples invalid for a customer to do. It just won't get them anywhere because, the things in question aren't usually profitable. People did the same for new coke. And the customer was right, so they fixed it.
In AoC's case, otoh, they explicitly have stated they don't need the money. So if people are demanding it so they can feel included/get something they would actually like in support rather than whatever scrap is nearest available, I see no reason to not change policy on future products.
Unless they do need the money. In which case they obviously know their bottom line best, but I highly suspect given the pent up interest that it'd be more profitable in the long run. Margaret is really the only person who would have the best data on that though.
If they do need the money, though, it's kind of weird for them to keep saying they don't. So I don't suspect that is the case. Extra bonus money from a change in policy that doesn't effect past promises otoh is a weird thing for a corporation to pass up.
So what is the real argument for the continued policy here?
'That's how it is and they are under no obligation to change it?' Sure but customers are under no obligation to not complain about a decision they disagree with when they aren't given a better reason than 'because I said so' either.
'They promised exclusivity!' Yes but changing the policy wouldn't involve breaking the existing promises. It would only apply to future content.
'They need the extra money generated by their current tactic!' They continue to reject the need for money so you would be arguing against the merchant's own word.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
Oh, agreed that it’s completely possible for a consumer to do those things - and also agree that it’ll result in a dead end. Any consumer expectation that the merchant has a responsibility to address those requests is completely misplaced. Looking back, I may have read into that more than intended from your earlier post, if so - apologies.
Sorta. New Coke is a text book product launch debacle. Ultimately, consumers just didn’t buy it, leading to a complete upside down position for the product. ‘They fixed it,’ by ‘relaunching’ Classic a few months later. But the new Coke (Coke II) brand was an utter failure. I’m glad they didn’t make the same mistake with Coke Zero.
Maybe? Idk - I have no interest speculating on Steven’s money. It’s his money, and he’ll operate accordingly. To Bloodprophet’s point above, IS learned the hard way about backing away from stated positions to customers. At this point in their development and customer growth, integrity is a huge factor (and a big liability if compromised).
For where we are today, I’d just point to the quotes folks linked from Steven. I think it’s an important retrospective question though, was that hard line the best direction? Did it paint them into having to take an inflexible position? Idk.
Fine, but I think it’s also reasonable to expect some push back on those complaints.
Well, unless you argue that buying into a tier granted future exclusive access to items that wouldn’t be generally available, and that exclusivity was a portion of what they purchased. If you bought into jelly of the month club in January to have exclusive access to artisanal jellies not available to the everyday consumer, and then in June all of the jellies are just open to whomever a la carte, the terms of that January contract may have been violated.
What’s odd to me is any sense of either ‘something has been done to me’ or ‘I want this and you should provide it to me’ - which is wrapped into this concept of FOMO.
Bolded the relevant parts because you are so close to getting it. The whole point is that FOMO tactics are chosen by the merchant selling a digital item, thus making it their responsibility – it’s not an assumption when Steven clearly said the purpose of the limited availability is to make them more appealing products. And people don’t like FOMO tactics because they are, by design, manipulative.
I don’t think in this case it’s malicious, but the same way accidentally bumping into someone doesn’t negate the bruises just because it was an accident, FOMO is still manipulative to some extent regardless of intent. Since we are the customers, we’re well within our boundaries to express displeasure or frustration at those tactics.
[Philosophical_thought_experiment]
If an mmo is sub only, it's content is exclusive to paying customers. The company can say they have exclusive access to the cash shop. They can also change their subscription model to free to play at any time and not get sued for violating verbally promised exclusivity when suddenly f2p members gave access to the cash shop. (I am not a lawyer, so feel free to completely dismantle my opinion with your much more valid legal opinion if you are a lawyer and want to. I am only speaking from my business law knowledge.)
Similarly Louis Vuitton can make as many damn purses as it wants (albeit probably ruin it's share value because rich people want a way to signal they aren't poor.) Same principle. Why? Because you aren't entitled to exclusivity as part of a payment model. If he changed future purchasing parameters, I really doubt he will get sued for something that loose, and he would have every right to change it as far as I know as a merchant. Your only power there is voting with your wallet and social pressure. Just like in the situation we are in now but in favor of way more potential customers.
[/Philosophical_thought_experiment]
I admit given the quotes from Unknown that given Steven's stance it probably won't change unless Margaret talks him out of it if it is even possible. But Margaret can only argue against it if there is enough outcry. So yes people should complain that they want the limited recipe of policy change I proposed and separately what Jahlon has proposed in the past relative to alacart buying options for cosmetics.
We both agree arguing for past content to become available to all is both a nonstarter (socially and legally even if it won't hold up well in court it will certainly cause deeper legal proceedings to go further) and bogus entitlement.
I personally think putting huge monetary gates on a costume to make two people have different costumes at a party is a stupid (and bourgeoisie) way of solving the problem. Having enough options of some average standard of quality such that personal expression is the deciding factor is a much better solution. You can guess from my arguments that I loathe status symbols as a concept. And you would be right, I don't think they are acceptable culture in videogames. Keeping irl economic status minimized is one of the reasons I support subscription and true f2p models. Whether or not the market accepts such culture is up to people's wallets and social pressure.
Why am I arguing so vehemently against this practice? The longer Steven's version of exclusivity is kept as a guiding principle in this games culture, the less likely changing to a model of acceptable price values for content is in the long run after launch. Nothing will socially stop IS from having exclusive whale catching outfits at 30-50$ a pop, l since by then a good chunk of the fan base will be trained to accept it and will have whiny whales aggressively pushing back against any change. Because while it isn't a legal promise it will be a social one like LV's at that point. And then we are stuck with a dumb purchasing system for good. I think that's a dumb and boring direction for AoC's cash shop to go.
P.S. (And no I don't think exclusive costumes via large economic barriers are p2w to all you people who might be thinking I consider having the best costumes winning. I just think it is consumer unfriendly.)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw