DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited April 2022
*meh*
I think before launch and after launch are significantly different.
Before launch, you buy a package to support the development and get perks like Alpha and Beta access. Access to a la carte monthly cosmetics is an additional perk.
I don't really see how they can do something similar after launch.
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?
It still has value... You still get to use it in game on release...They will not lose all buyer interest if anything the opposite.
If my choices are really 'this model that will inevitably lead to a bad cash shop model post launch' and 'none at all but a good cash shop model later' I choose the latter. While they could change to a better model post launch, I doubt it because it's a cultural stance not an economic one as Steven admits himself. So I would expect him to stick to that model.
However if the shop closed till launch there is a very small chance it would be a way to distance themselves from the current purchasing model post release to avoid whatever backlash they may recieve from changing it now. Save the cool cash shop cosmetics for launch. Heck keep the shop open and just sell embers instead of costumes. There are plenty of reasonable approaches to this that could be implemented with minimal outcry that are much more consumer friendly.
Bolded the relevant parts because you are so close to getting it.
It’s kind of funny you say that, since I had a similar response to the rest of your post below. I wonder in this case whether we are just have different frames of reference on the same coin.
We’ll see…
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.
Who’s desire leads to demand in the equation
Who’s fear is it in FOMO?
Who’s responsibility is it for managing and owning that fear?
Let’s downshift…
A baker can only sell you a donut because you want a donut.
A baker tells you this is the last donut (even if there are more) and you are willing to pay double, it’s still your desire that cost you 2$x.
A baker tells you that the super donut is only available today. It’s your choice to desire the super donut so much that you agree to the purchasing terms to the super donut.
The merchant is responsible for delivering goods based on the stated terms of a sale. But it’s customer desire - I.e. demand - that adjusts those terms. You aren’t a victim of ‘tactics’ by agreeing to those terms, and that frame of reference ignores the entire responsibility the customer has to manage their own desires.
That’s why your analogy of being bumped into is somewhat stilted. If someone DID bump into you, it may be less about their action and more about how hard you pulled them towards you.
You want Steven’s donut, but take no ownership of that want, only demand it’s his fault for not giving you what you want on your terms. Which also totally explains why you might feel manipulated…
Bolded the relevant parts because you are so close to getting it.
It’s kind of funny you say that, since I had a similar response to the rest of your post below. I wonder in this case whether we are just have different frames of reference on the same coin.
We’ll see…
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.
Who’s desire leads to demand in the equation
Who’s fear is it in FOMO?
Who’s responsibility is it for managing and owning that fear?
Let’s downshift…
A baker can only sell you a donut because you want a donut.
A baker tells you this is the last donut (even if there are more) and you are willing to pay double, it’s still your desire that cost you 2$x.
A baker tells you that the super donut is only available today. It’s your choice to desire the super donut so much that you agree to the purchasing terms to the super donut.
The merchant is responsible for delivering goods based on the stated terms of a sale. But it’s customer desire - I.e. demand - that adjusts those terms. You aren’t a victim of ‘tactics’ by agreeing to those terms, and that frame of reference ignores the entire responsibility the customer has to manage their own desires.
That’s why your analogy of being bumped into is somewhat stilted. If someone DID bump into you, it may be less about their action and more about how hard you pulled them towards you.
You want Steven’s donut, but take no ownership of that want, only demand it’s his fault for not giving you what you want on your terms. Which also totally explains why you might feel manipulated…
For reference when you read my other posts @CROW3 (to help save you time) I agree with everything you say here. And I also agree that exclusivity is a valid thing to want in a payment model. I just disagree with it as a choice for Ashes post launch for reasons outlined in my last response to you.
Hasn't this topic reached its conclusion couple of replies back with the screenshots of those Steven's quotes?
FOMO is a sign of immaturity in a kid and weak mental disposition if its an adult. You can say I am wrong but it is what it is. Intrepid is selling something with terms CLEARLY stated. Someone's inability to comprehend it is not their fault. They told no lies, didn't ask anyone for money and still consider communities input. What more can people ask for?
As far as business perspective is considered, I am sure Steven has hired experts more qualified then the people present here. Steven has stated multiple times that if anyone has any doubt then they should wait for game release before spending money in the game. He doesn't care about OPs money or any monetary profit being talked about here.
Hasn't this topic reached its conclusion couple of replies back with the screenshots of those Steven's quotes?
FOMO is a sign of immaturity in a kid and weak mental disposition if its an adult. You can say I am wrong but it is what it is. Intrepid is selling something with terms CLEARLY stated. Someone's inability to comprehend it is not their fault. They told no lies, didn't ask anyone for money and still consider communities input. What more can people ask for?
Marketing tactics are designed to be manipulative. If you think a limited item is more valuable than a common item purely because it is limited, congrats! You have been manipulated by a marketing tactic! That’s what they’re designed to do!
You are not immune to these tactics. They exist because human minds are highly prone to influence. Yes even yours. Yes even mine. Everyone’s.
And people don’t like FOMO tactics because they are, by design, manipulative.
Manipulative. Exercising unscrupulous control or influence over a person or situation.
Explain to me how offering a limited time cosmetic to people that wish to buy it is exercising unscrupulous control or influence over a person.
Perhaps as a means of assistance;
Unscrupulous. Having or showing no moral principles; not honest or fair.
Intrepids system does not show a lack of morals at all. It is 100% honest and fair. Some people may not like it, but that does not alter the blatant actual and outright fact that it is honest and fair.
Please refrain from using such inaccurate language.
Further, if any individual is unable to control their own personal habits or temper their own desires to the point where a company offering exclusive cosmetics to a game is an issue for them, they should seek professional help.
He doesn't care about OPs money or any monetary profit being talked about here.
I agree with what you said in the rest of your post, but wanted to talk about this specifically.
Maybe he should care about monetary profit. Recently, Steven said that he plans on increasing the team size to 200 people. That sounds super expensive, to the point that I worry their current investment might not be enough.
A quick google search of "burn rate per employee" shows me that a commonly thrown out number is $10k per employee per month. At 200 employees that's $2 million a month. Intrepid's numbers can be higher or lower, I'm not sure. All I'm sure of is that they're spending butt loads of money.
In my mind, if opening up the cosmetic store so that they can make more money would allow them just a few months more wiggle room of development, or would allow them to hire just a few more guys (or one big name in the industry), then fuck what Steven thinks, do what's best for the game.
fuck what Steven thinks, do what's best for the game.
I agree with this sentiment, but I am unsure opening up the cosmetic shop would have a net positive effect.
The first thing to keep in mind is that all previous cosmetics simply can not be put up for sale again. The amount of reputation damage that would do to Intrepid would mean that the game may as well never release.
So, whats left for Intrepid to make profit on? New cosmetics going forward? They are already making money on new cosmetics, the question is whether or not they would make more money on any new cosmetics by not having them be monthly exclusives.
To me, if Intrepid were to not put a time limit on items, I see no reason at all to buy anything right now. I would keep the money in the bank and buy something when the game releases. Since there is no reason to not do this, I would have to assume most people would do the same.
Sure, there will be some people that just want to support the game and so would buy things - but there is nothing stopping them from doing that now anyway.
The only people that gain in this scenario are the people that come to the game after the release of a new cosmetic that they want, and see that they can indeed buy it if they want. However, such people are still in the same position where the best thing for them to do is to wait until the game is released.
As such, the only way Intrepid take in money from someone that they wouldn't have taken in otherwise is if someone comes to the game after Intrepid drop the exclusivity on items, sees an item from a previous month that they like, decide they want to support Intrepid now, but would have only provided that support to Intrepid if they got the item they wanted (what the hell kind of support is that?). The number of people that this would apply to simply does not match the number of people that would see there is no point in buying a cosmetic until the game is released.
So, from my view, Intrepid dropping the exclusive element of the current cash shop would see a drastic decline in the revenue from said cash shop. So, if we go back to doing what is best for the game (fuck what Steven thinks, and all that), then surely what is being done now is exactly that.
Since people can not compare what will actually be available for free in game there is some perception that the "good stuff" is going fast and the ingame items will be dull and colorless. That isn't true but until it's possible to see the other various skin assets, people are experiencing FOMO.
For reference when you read my other posts @CROW3 (to help save you time) I agree with everything you say here. And I also agree that exclusivity is a valid thing to want in a payment model. I just disagree with it as a choice for Ashes post launch for reasons outlined in my last response to you.
fuck what Steven thinks, do what's best for the game.
I agree with this sentiment, but I am unsure opening up the cosmetic shop would have a net positive effect.
The first thing to keep in mind is that all previous cosmetics simply can not be put up for sale again. The amount of reputation damage that would do to Intrepid would mean that the game may as well never release.
So, whats left for Intrepid to make profit on? New cosmetics going forward? They are already making money on new cosmetics, the question is whether or not they would make more money on any new cosmetics by not having them be monthly exclusives.
To me, if Intrepid were to not put a time limit on items, I see no reason at all to buy anything right now. I would keep the money in the bank and buy something when the game releases. Since there is no reason to not do this, I would have to assume most people would do the same.
I agree, if the 'FOMO' aspect is removed, I expect the immediate sales numbers to go down. The real question is about sale numbers in the future.
I think people dislike "Fear of Missing Out" marketing for three reasons:
#1: Fear. Fear isn't a pleasant feeling, much less spending money based on fear.
#2: Missing Out. "Missing Out" on a future event, specifically. The fact of the matter is that nobody knows for sure how Ashes will end up on release, so many feel that marketing on an uncertain future is immoral. This is why Steven always says some variation of "don't spend money on us, just wait". He's trying to assuage fears about the future.
#3: Marketing. FOMO is stupid effective, and some people just don't like the feeling of being marketed to.
Removing (or reducing) FOMO could land Intrepid in a lot of people's good graces thereby increasing their customer base (but probably not by much). The flip side of that is it removes a really strong method of marketing. I don't expect removing the FOMO stuff to be monetarily effective like OP thinks.
Sure, there will be some people that just want to support the game and so would buy things - but there is nothing stopping them from doing that now anyway.
There actually is something stopping them from doing that: the massive initial pay-wall. Go look at the Ashes store while not logged in; the smallest purchase one can make is $75 dollars. This is far beyond a simple "donation to help Intrepid". I think this paywall needs to go.
The only people that gain in this scenario are the people that come to the game after the release of a new cosmetic that they want, and see that they can indeed buy it if they want. However, such people are still in the same position where the best thing for them to do is to wait until the game is released.
As such, the only way Intrepid take in money from someone that they wouldn't have taken in otherwise is if someone comes to the game after Intrepid drop the exclusivity on items, sees an item from a previous month that they like, decide they want to support Intrepid now, but would have only provided that support to Intrepid if they got the item they wanted (what the hell kind of support is that?). The number of people that this would apply to simply does not match the number of people that would see there is no point in buying a cosmetic until the game is released.
So, from my view, Intrepid dropping the exclusive element of the current cash shop would see a drastic decline in the revenue from said cash shop. So, if we go back to doing what is best for the game (fuck what Steven thinks, and all that), then surely what is being done now is exactly that.
So you're saying that without the pressure from the monthly purchase window, less purchases will be made because the benefit from FOMO outweighs the benefit from increasing the customer base? Just rewording things as I understand it so you can correct me if I misunderstood.
That could definitely be the case. Its impossible to really know without hard numbers.
The way I see it, if Intrepid #1) removes the $75 beta access paywall and #2) extends the FOMO purchase deadline for all new cosmetics to pre-launch sometime (say, before beta 1), they will massively increase the revenue from their cosmetics (in the long run, and just not from invested people like you or me).
#1 should increase the customer base simply by allowing smaller donation amounts, at cost of allowing some donors who aren't as invested and may be upset down the line. #2 will increase the amount of things for the increased customer base to buy, at cost of a big reduction in the cosmetic's exclusivity value. I think there's also a factor of bulk purchases vs monthly purchases. I think people are much more likely to spend $115 monthly over a year than they are to spend $1380. This is a point in favor of monthly FOMO.
Basically: is it better to have many more customers buying small amounts, or fewer (but more invested) customers buying large amounts? I can see both TBH. Imagine all the Asmongold viewers checking out the game after a cool tech demo, wanting to pick up the mount from this month, and buying an item or two from previous months while they're at it because "why not".
0
Options
VarkunMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I honestly do not look at each month's offerings as cosmetics so much but as assets that will be used to expand the world of Verra.
Close your eyes spread your arms and always trust your cape.
I agree, if the 'FOMO' aspect is removed, I expect the immediate sales numbers to go down. The real question is about sale numbers in the future.
I think people dislike "Fear of Missing Out" marketing for three reasons:
#1: Fear. Fear isn't a pleasant feeling, much less spending money based on fear.
#2: Missing Out. "Missing Out" on a future event, specifically. The fact of the matter is that nobody knows for sure how Ashes will end up on release, so many feel that marketing on an uncertain future is immoral. This is why Steven always says some variation of "don't spend money on us, just wait". He's trying to assuage fears about the future.
#3: Marketing. FOMO is stupid effective, and some people just don't like the feeling of being marketed to.
Removing (or reducing) FOMO could land Intrepid in a lot of people's good graces thereby increasing their customer base (but probably not by much). The flip side of that is it removes a really strong method of marketing. I don't expect removing the FOMO stuff to be monetarily effective like OP thinks.
There actually is something stopping them from doing that: the massive initial pay-wall. Go look at the Ashes store while not logged in; the smallest purchase one can make is $75 dollars. This is far beyond a simple "donation to help Intrepid". I think this paywall needs to go.
So you're saying that without the pressure from the monthly purchase window, less purchases will be made because the benefit from FOMO outweighs the benefit from increasing the customer base? Just rewording things as I understand it so you can correct me if I misunderstood.
That could definitely be the case. Its impossible to really know without hard numbers.
The way I see it, if Intrepid #1) removes the $75 beta access paywall and #2) extends the FOMO purchase deadline for all new cosmetics to pre-launch sometime (say, before beta 1), they will massively increase the revenue from their cosmetics (in the long run, and just not from invested people like you or me).
#1 should increase the customer base simply by allowing smaller donation amounts, at cost of allowing some donors who aren't as invested and may be upset down the line. #2 will increase the amount of things for the increased customer base to buy, at cost of a big reduction in the cosmetic's exclusivity value. I think there's also a factor of bulk purchases vs monthly purchases. I think people are much more likely to spend $115 monthly over a year than they are to spend $1380. This is a point in favor of monthly FOMO.
Basically: is it better to have many more customers buying small amounts, or fewer (but more invested) customers buying large amounts? I can see both TBH. Imagine all the Asmongold viewers checking out the game after a cool tech demo, wanting to pick up the mount from this month, and buying an item or two from previous months while they're at it because "why not".
There are different levels of fomo. Steven just chose one of the most extreme.
For example a rolling 3 month window I would argue would both be more effective at engagement and be slightly more consumer friendly compared to the current short buy window as it allows for a little more comparison of options. A lot of the cosmetics target a specific theme people just aren't into. The fact that you can hear about AoC from a stream/major event and then just 'not know your options' and miss out on one you like a month previous is part of the psychology of missing out. IS could lessen the window and therefore the strength of the effect.
Or they could note that going forward you can buy any future content with your embers at an increased price. So there is some fear, but not as much missing out. Maybe have them have less particle effects or something if they didnt buy them that month.
Additionally, IS could proove in good faith through action that they plan on changing their models and pricing by stating a definite point like Alpha 2 or beta 1 when they will end the practice. This would be a nod to possible consumer issues relative to post release and similarly boost credability without effecting any current paradigm.
Lots of small meaningful changes that could make IS have more consumer friendly practices.
Of course, I expect they won't without a large internal and external push. But there are definitely compromises that could be made that would represent better business practices and be a meaningful pr olive branch to some of the more reasonable people who are criticizing their current cash shop without stepping on the toes of customers who already got their exclusivity. I can definitely tell you I would be more on their side on this issue if they made any of these compromises.
#3: Marketing. FOMO is stupid effective, and some people just don't like the feeling of being marketed to.
It is only effective on specific people - and as I said above, those people should honestly seek professional help.
There is a reason they fear missing out on some in game cosmetic, and it has nothing to do with that in game cosmetic.
The $75 pay wall you mentioned isn't a part of anything to do with FOMO, it is its own discussion. The reason there is a high barrier to entry in to alpha and beta is because Intrepid don't want people that are jot at least somewhat invested in the game to be participants at those points. Alpha and beta in Ashes are actual alpha and beta stages, as opposed to most recent MMO's where they are effectively early access periods.
I do agree that there will be a point where it is in Intrepids best interest to switch over to no longer having a limited duration on items (maybe some, maybe all). However, I would wager that this point will coincide with a launch date announcement.
3
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?
It still has value... You still get to use it in game on release...They will not lose all buyer interest if anything the opposite.
If my choices are really 'this model that will inevitably lead to a bad cash shop model post launch' and 'none at all but a good cash shop model later' I choose the latter. While they could change to a better model post launch, I doubt it because it's a cultural stance not an economic one as Steven admits himself. So I would expect him to stick to that model.
However if the shop closed till launch there is a very small chance it would be a way to distance themselves from the current purchasing model post release to avoid whatever backlash they may recieve from changing it now. Save the cool cash shop cosmetics for launch. Heck keep the shop open and just sell embers instead of costumes. There are plenty of reasonable approaches to this that could be implemented with minimal outcry that are much more consumer friendly.
So you will argue for changing it now or removing it but won't argue to change it at launch because you think that will never happen? Changing it at launch makes the most since to me since players can use what they are buying.
Why would players buy embers now for a game that isn't launch and more importantly, how does that look better? That looks worse. At least with cosmetics you have an idea of what you are helping them build for the world.
So you will argue for changing it now or removing it but won't argue to change it at launch because you think that will never happen? Changing it at launch makes the most since to me since players can use what they are buying.
If they say an actual plan for what that they will change it at launch I will unconditionally go with their word. In fact that was precisely one of the suggestions I made in another post. But many people here are ASSUMING there is a plan to switch 'because that makes logical sense/it is what they expect'. However as a marketer, I never make such assumptions because I know how much it's in a corporations interest to dip toes and see what they get away with. Combine that with the fact that Steven has a history of being vague and not having a real plan for things he gives vague promises for, I'm inclined to not 'take their word' with a simple 'we plan on changing this' without stating what the possible parameters for that are.
I don't think this is an unreasonable position to take even if others are willing to be more trusting of them. I just also know from experience that if a player base gets used to less than optimal consumer practices, the consumers are less likely to have a response of the magnitude required to change a businesses practices. So yes, I still see plenty of value in requesting the more cautious approach be taken. If only because it'd give people more reason to trust their consumer friendly culture.
Why would players buy embers now for a game that isn't launch and more importantly, how does that look better? That looks worse. At least with cosmetics you have an idea of what you are helping them build for the world.
You already buy embers in the current model, and nothing stops the devs from showing off the same stuff they are showing off in live streams just because the policy is slightly different. You'd still have an idea. The incentive could be 'discounted rates' as the incentive. Is this less effective? Yes, but it's less effective because it's less manipulative of human psychology in comparison. Hence it being a more consumer friendly approach and it being an indirect statement about their corporate culture relative to best practice and consumer advocacy.
If they say an actual plan for what that they will change it at launch I will unconditionally go with their word.
You should ask in the next development update thread about their plans for the ingame cash shop and how it will work (will it be like final fantasy/wow where most cosmetics are permanently available. Or will it continue to have the rotating feature.)
That way you'll get an answer direct from Steven and it'll be on record.
That way you'll get an answer direct from Steven and it'll be on record.
I’m pretty sure Steven has already said this many times in different interviews & settings. Not sure if there was a court stenographer in the room, but we can sidebar if a mistrial needs to be considered. 🤪
That way you'll get an answer direct from Steven and it'll be on record.
I’m pretty sure Steven has already said this many times in different interviews & settings. Not sure if there was a court stenographer in the room, but we can sidebar if a mistrial needs to be considered. 🤪
Steven has said SOME things about it, but no not really much about the specifics of what kinds of practices and pricing they will be considering. You will not get a direct answer from Steven, as it would disadvantage and hamstring him to commitments without a full analysis. Or worse, cause arguments and confusion because communication is hard even when you are really precise. Someone in the audience is always working off of different priors than the speaker and that someone is rarely an anomaly. We have things that are pretty clear to Steven now that the community STILL argues about the meaning of because 'we don't know what assumptions/priors he is working from.'
This is something that needs to come from Margaret and Steven in a section other than Q&A. To try and force it in a Q&A will either waste my question as it will get ignored and answered post stream on the forum with whatever vague things they consider valid answers, give us a half answer that will hurt Intrepid's image or hinder their planning. If they did answer it in full and earnest, it'd probably put Margaret and Steven on the spot which is fairly dumb when I want for a much more nuanced and measured approach that is still good for their bottom line while implementing better practices.
People in the community content creation program are in a much better position to ask this question as they can have a back and forth conversation that can clear up more of the nuance about the policy if Intrepid is really willing to commit to some self guidelines other than 'no pay to win' on cash shop issues.
If you don't want to pay box price, if you don't want to pay a higher monthly sub so all the cosmetics are achievable in-game, maybe the game is not for you.
You are tripping if you think Steven prefers to have a shop instead of in-game achievables if the people were willing to pay more. So don't blame it on me, no, blame it on those who don't want to pay more for a better game.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
People in the community content creation program are in a much better position to ask this question as they can have a back and forth conversation that can clear up more of the nuance about the policy if Intrepid is really willing to commit to some self guidelines other than 'no pay to win' on cash shop issues.
Maybe. He tends to only reveal what he wants to, but...every little bit helps and... doesn't hurt to try.
If ya missed the boat you missed the boat.... I am sad I missed out on some of the earlier cosmetics but that is what it is. However there needs to be some sort of reward for those who have supported the project from earlier on... If things are listed as a limited time product they need to remain as such
Absolutely not. They have already committed to being limited time offers and if they go back on that then they alienate everyone who has made a purchase. This work will not go unappreciated by everyone. They have already said that the work they put into these cosmetics, mount skins, etc. will all be used in variations of monsters and NPCs throughout the world. You will see variations of each of these monthly cosmetic packs in your adventures. They're not going to go back on their word simply because you feel like you missed out.
Some people just make things way too complicated. I bought a couple of things. Because something appealed to me, such as being super cute. I fully expect even better ones will be available in-game. There better be! No, i don't want what I paid for to appear in a Christmas present for everyone. Yes, some games do that. But if they do, then just give me my $5 back. LOL
Comments
I think before launch and after launch are significantly different.
Before launch, you buy a package to support the development and get perks like Alpha and Beta access. Access to a la carte monthly cosmetics is an additional perk.
I don't really see how they can do something similar after launch.
It still has value... You still get to use it in game on release...They will not lose all buyer interest if anything the opposite.
If my choices are really 'this model that will inevitably lead to a bad cash shop model post launch' and 'none at all but a good cash shop model later' I choose the latter. While they could change to a better model post launch, I doubt it because it's a cultural stance not an economic one as Steven admits himself. So I would expect him to stick to that model.
However if the shop closed till launch there is a very small chance it would be a way to distance themselves from the current purchasing model post release to avoid whatever backlash they may recieve from changing it now. Save the cool cash shop cosmetics for launch. Heck keep the shop open and just sell embers instead of costumes. There are plenty of reasonable approaches to this that could be implemented with minimal outcry that are much more consumer friendly.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
It’s kind of funny you say that, since I had a similar response to the rest of your post below. I wonder in this case whether we are just have different frames of reference on the same coin.
We’ll see…
Who’s desire leads to demand in the equation
Who’s fear is it in FOMO?
Who’s responsibility is it for managing and owning that fear?
Let’s downshift…
A baker can only sell you a donut because you want a donut.
A baker tells you this is the last donut (even if there are more) and you are willing to pay double, it’s still your desire that cost you 2$x.
A baker tells you that the super donut is only available today. It’s your choice to desire the super donut so much that you agree to the purchasing terms to the super donut.
The merchant is responsible for delivering goods based on the stated terms of a sale. But it’s customer desire - I.e. demand - that adjusts those terms. You aren’t a victim of ‘tactics’ by agreeing to those terms, and that frame of reference ignores the entire responsibility the customer has to manage their own desires.
That’s why your analogy of being bumped into is somewhat stilted. If someone DID bump into you, it may be less about their action and more about how hard you pulled them towards you.
You want Steven’s donut, but take no ownership of that want, only demand it’s his fault for not giving you what you want on your terms. Which also totally explains why you might feel manipulated…
For reference when you read my other posts @CROW3 (to help save you time) I agree with everything you say here. And I also agree that exclusivity is a valid thing to want in a payment model. I just disagree with it as a choice for Ashes post launch for reasons outlined in my last response to you.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
FOMO is a sign of immaturity in a kid and weak mental disposition if its an adult. You can say I am wrong but it is what it is. Intrepid is selling something with terms CLEARLY stated. Someone's inability to comprehend it is not their fault. They told no lies, didn't ask anyone for money and still consider communities input. What more can people ask for?
As far as business perspective is considered, I am sure Steven has hired experts more qualified then the people present here. Steven has stated multiple times that if anyone has any doubt then they should wait for game release before spending money in the game. He doesn't care about OPs money or any monetary profit being talked about here.
Marketing tactics are designed to be manipulative. If you think a limited item is more valuable than a common item purely because it is limited, congrats! You have been manipulated by a marketing tactic! That’s what they’re designed to do!
You are not immune to these tactics. They exist because human minds are highly prone to influence. Yes even yours. Yes even mine. Everyone’s.
Explain to me how offering a limited time cosmetic to people that wish to buy it is exercising unscrupulous control or influence over a person.
Perhaps as a means of assistance;
Unscrupulous. Having or showing no moral principles; not honest or fair.
Intrepids system does not show a lack of morals at all. It is 100% honest and fair. Some people may not like it, but that does not alter the blatant actual and outright fact that it is honest and fair.
Please refrain from using such inaccurate language.
Further, if any individual is unable to control their own personal habits or temper their own desires to the point where a company offering exclusive cosmetics to a game is an issue for them, they should seek professional help.
No joke - that is a problem.
I agree with what you said in the rest of your post, but wanted to talk about this specifically.
Maybe he should care about monetary profit. Recently, Steven said that he plans on increasing the team size to 200 people. That sounds super expensive, to the point that I worry their current investment might not be enough.
A quick google search of "burn rate per employee" shows me that a commonly thrown out number is $10k per employee per month. At 200 employees that's $2 million a month. Intrepid's numbers can be higher or lower, I'm not sure. All I'm sure of is that they're spending butt loads of money.
In my mind, if opening up the cosmetic store so that they can make more money would allow them just a few months more wiggle room of development, or would allow them to hire just a few more guys (or one big name in the industry), then fuck what Steven thinks, do what's best for the game.
The first thing to keep in mind is that all previous cosmetics simply can not be put up for sale again. The amount of reputation damage that would do to Intrepid would mean that the game may as well never release.
So, whats left for Intrepid to make profit on? New cosmetics going forward? They are already making money on new cosmetics, the question is whether or not they would make more money on any new cosmetics by not having them be monthly exclusives.
To me, if Intrepid were to not put a time limit on items, I see no reason at all to buy anything right now. I would keep the money in the bank and buy something when the game releases. Since there is no reason to not do this, I would have to assume most people would do the same.
Sure, there will be some people that just want to support the game and so would buy things - but there is nothing stopping them from doing that now anyway.
The only people that gain in this scenario are the people that come to the game after the release of a new cosmetic that they want, and see that they can indeed buy it if they want. However, such people are still in the same position where the best thing for them to do is to wait until the game is released.
As such, the only way Intrepid take in money from someone that they wouldn't have taken in otherwise is if someone comes to the game after Intrepid drop the exclusivity on items, sees an item from a previous month that they like, decide they want to support Intrepid now, but would have only provided that support to Intrepid if they got the item they wanted (what the hell kind of support is that?). The number of people that this would apply to simply does not match the number of people that would see there is no point in buying a cosmetic until the game is released.
So, from my view, Intrepid dropping the exclusive element of the current cash shop would see a drastic decline in the revenue from said cash shop. So, if we go back to doing what is best for the game (fuck what Steven thinks, and all that), then surely what is being done now is exactly that.
Thanks, @JustVine - I hear you. 👊
I agree, if the 'FOMO' aspect is removed, I expect the immediate sales numbers to go down. The real question is about sale numbers in the future.
I think people dislike "Fear of Missing Out" marketing for three reasons:
#1: Fear. Fear isn't a pleasant feeling, much less spending money based on fear.
#2: Missing Out. "Missing Out" on a future event, specifically. The fact of the matter is that nobody knows for sure how Ashes will end up on release, so many feel that marketing on an uncertain future is immoral. This is why Steven always says some variation of "don't spend money on us, just wait". He's trying to assuage fears about the future.
#3: Marketing. FOMO is stupid effective, and some people just don't like the feeling of being marketed to.
Removing (or reducing) FOMO could land Intrepid in a lot of people's good graces thereby increasing their customer base (but probably not by much). The flip side of that is it removes a really strong method of marketing. I don't expect removing the FOMO stuff to be monetarily effective like OP thinks.
There actually is something stopping them from doing that: the massive initial pay-wall. Go look at the Ashes store while not logged in; the smallest purchase one can make is $75 dollars. This is far beyond a simple "donation to help Intrepid". I think this paywall needs to go.
So you're saying that without the pressure from the monthly purchase window, less purchases will be made because the benefit from FOMO outweighs the benefit from increasing the customer base? Just rewording things as I understand it so you can correct me if I misunderstood.
That could definitely be the case. Its impossible to really know without hard numbers.
The way I see it, if Intrepid #1) removes the $75 beta access paywall and #2) extends the FOMO purchase deadline for all new cosmetics to pre-launch sometime (say, before beta 1), they will massively increase the revenue from their cosmetics (in the long run, and just not from invested people like you or me).
#1 should increase the customer base simply by allowing smaller donation amounts, at cost of allowing some donors who aren't as invested and may be upset down the line. #2 will increase the amount of things for the increased customer base to buy, at cost of a big reduction in the cosmetic's exclusivity value. I think there's also a factor of bulk purchases vs monthly purchases. I think people are much more likely to spend $115 monthly over a year than they are to spend $1380. This is a point in favor of monthly FOMO.
Basically: is it better to have many more customers buying small amounts, or fewer (but more invested) customers buying large amounts? I can see both TBH. Imagine all the Asmongold viewers checking out the game after a cool tech demo, wanting to pick up the mount from this month, and buying an item or two from previous months while they're at it because "why not".
There are different levels of fomo. Steven just chose one of the most extreme.
For example a rolling 3 month window I would argue would both be more effective at engagement and be slightly more consumer friendly compared to the current short buy window as it allows for a little more comparison of options. A lot of the cosmetics target a specific theme people just aren't into. The fact that you can hear about AoC from a stream/major event and then just 'not know your options' and miss out on one you like a month previous is part of the psychology of missing out. IS could lessen the window and therefore the strength of the effect.
Or they could note that going forward you can buy any future content with your embers at an increased price. So there is some fear, but not as much missing out. Maybe have them have less particle effects or something if they didnt buy them that month.
Additionally, IS could proove in good faith through action that they plan on changing their models and pricing by stating a definite point like Alpha 2 or beta 1 when they will end the practice. This would be a nod to possible consumer issues relative to post release and similarly boost credability without effecting any current paradigm.
Lots of small meaningful changes that could make IS have more consumer friendly practices.
Of course, I expect they won't without a large internal and external push. But there are definitely compromises that could be made that would represent better business practices and be a meaningful pr olive branch to some of the more reasonable people who are criticizing their current cash shop without stepping on the toes of customers who already got their exclusivity. I can definitely tell you I would be more on their side on this issue if they made any of these compromises.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
There is a reason they fear missing out on some in game cosmetic, and it has nothing to do with that in game cosmetic.
The $75 pay wall you mentioned isn't a part of anything to do with FOMO, it is its own discussion. The reason there is a high barrier to entry in to alpha and beta is because Intrepid don't want people that are jot at least somewhat invested in the game to be participants at those points. Alpha and beta in Ashes are actual alpha and beta stages, as opposed to most recent MMO's where they are effectively early access periods.
I do agree that there will be a point where it is in Intrepids best interest to switch over to no longer having a limited duration on items (maybe some, maybe all). However, I would wager that this point will coincide with a launch date announcement.
So you will argue for changing it now or removing it but won't argue to change it at launch because you think that will never happen? Changing it at launch makes the most since to me since players can use what they are buying.
Why would players buy embers now for a game that isn't launch and more importantly, how does that look better? That looks worse. At least with cosmetics you have an idea of what you are helping them build for the world.
If they say an actual plan for what that they will change it at launch I will unconditionally go with their word. In fact that was precisely one of the suggestions I made in another post. But many people here are ASSUMING there is a plan to switch 'because that makes logical sense/it is what they expect'. However as a marketer, I never make such assumptions because I know how much it's in a corporations interest to dip toes and see what they get away with. Combine that with the fact that Steven has a history of being vague and not having a real plan for things he gives vague promises for, I'm inclined to not 'take their word' with a simple 'we plan on changing this' without stating what the possible parameters for that are.
I don't think this is an unreasonable position to take even if others are willing to be more trusting of them. I just also know from experience that if a player base gets used to less than optimal consumer practices, the consumers are less likely to have a response of the magnitude required to change a businesses practices. So yes, I still see plenty of value in requesting the more cautious approach be taken. If only because it'd give people more reason to trust their consumer friendly culture.
You already buy embers in the current model, and nothing stops the devs from showing off the same stuff they are showing off in live streams just because the policy is slightly different. You'd still have an idea. The incentive could be 'discounted rates' as the incentive. Is this less effective? Yes, but it's less effective because it's less manipulative of human psychology in comparison. Hence it being a more consumer friendly approach and it being an indirect statement about their corporate culture relative to best practice and consumer advocacy.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
You should ask in the next development update thread about their plans for the ingame cash shop and how it will work (will it be like final fantasy/wow where most cosmetics are permanently available. Or will it continue to have the rotating feature.)
That way you'll get an answer direct from Steven and it'll be on record.
I’m pretty sure Steven has already said this many times in different interviews & settings. Not sure if there was a court stenographer in the room, but we can sidebar if a mistrial needs to be considered. 🤪
Steven has said SOME things about it, but no not really much about the specifics of what kinds of practices and pricing they will be considering. You will not get a direct answer from Steven, as it would disadvantage and hamstring him to commitments without a full analysis. Or worse, cause arguments and confusion because communication is hard even when you are really precise. Someone in the audience is always working off of different priors than the speaker and that someone is rarely an anomaly. We have things that are pretty clear to Steven now that the community STILL argues about the meaning of because 'we don't know what assumptions/priors he is working from.'
This is something that needs to come from Margaret and Steven in a section other than Q&A. To try and force it in a Q&A will either waste my question as it will get ignored and answered post stream on the forum with whatever vague things they consider valid answers, give us a half answer that will hurt Intrepid's image or hinder their planning. If they did answer it in full and earnest, it'd probably put Margaret and Steven on the spot which is fairly dumb when I want for a much more nuanced and measured approach that is still good for their bottom line while implementing better practices.
People in the community content creation program are in a much better position to ask this question as they can have a back and forth conversation that can clear up more of the nuance about the policy if Intrepid is really willing to commit to some self guidelines other than 'no pay to win' on cash shop issues.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
You are tripping if you think Steven prefers to have a shop instead of in-game achievables if the people were willing to pay more. So don't blame it on me, no, blame it on those who don't want to pay more for a better game.
This would have been good info to know sooner.