Anyway, Ashes marketing is not that bad but I understand if it annoys some people. The main emphasis on those monthly letters have been selling cosmetics and actual progression of the development comes secondary. This has continued years and some people actually buys those cosmetic packages because of the fear of missing out, "last call on shop packages".
I don't understand how a monthly letter is predatory.
And from where you got the idea that I have said so?
A reply to something you wrote can be an also - not necessarily a disagreement.
Anyway, Ashes marketing is not that bad but I understand if it annoys some people. The main emphasis on those monthly letters have been selling cosmetics and actual progression of the development comes secondary. This has continued years and some people actually buys those cosmetic packages because of the fear of missing out, "last call on shop packages".
I don't understand how a monthly letter is predatory.
And from where you got the idea that I have said so?
A reply to something you wrote can be an also - not necessarily a disagreement.
I am sure it is hard to understand if I have not even said anything like that. LMAO
Op used "predatory fomo emails" on the title. I do not personally agree with that because those are not predatory fomo emails, rather just fomo emails.
There is a valid point behind the rant because some European countries has taken actions against aggressive marketing in games. The main focus is on loot boxes but some same elements as fomo is on that list as well.
Anyway, Ashes marketing is not that bad but I understand if it annoys some people. The main emphasis on those monthly letters have been selling cosmetics and actual progression of the development comes secondary. This has continued years and some people actually buys those cosmetic packages because of the fear of missing out, "last call on shop packages".
Such posts as the OP should be given 0 ground or encouragement/"understanding".
And yet, here you are. You've just demonstrated something important about how minds work.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The account is one days old and the language is full of marketing jargon. This is not how an annoyed user acts. This is a deliberetly harmful BS post. As if that person wouldnt play a new mmo when AOC releashes. In a heartbeat they would.
You're giving me far too much credit. I'm flattered. But nah, I've been gaming MMOs since 1995 or whenever it was that Meridian started. I've played a lot of them since then. I'm not lying when I said I was looking forward to this game. But the integrity of a company matters a lot more to me at 45 than it did at 25. So I guess it depends on where you're at in life and how fed up you are with the direction of monetization.
Anyway, Ashes marketing is not that bad but I understand if it annoys some people. The main emphasis on those monthly letters have been selling cosmetics and actual progression of the development comes secondary. This has continued years and some people actually buys those cosmetic packages because of the fear of missing out, "last call on shop packages".
I don't understand how a monthly letter is predatory.
And from where you got the idea that I have said so?
A reply to something you wrote can be an also - not necessarily a disagreement.
I am sure it is hard to understand if I have not even said anything like that. LMAO
Op used "predatory fomo emails" on the title. I do not personally agree with that because those are not predatory fomo emails, rather just fomo emails.
Ah... Vic20.. there is a memory. My first PC was a Commodore Vic 20!
Even bought a 5kb expansion. It played Ultima 1... at the time, I never imagined graphics could be better
Heck yeah. Another OG. Vic20 was my first, but we also had a C64, so I used that the most. All those Forgotten Realms / Dragonlance SSI Gold Box titles... All the Ultimas (okay, some were better than others). I didn't know this until recently, but the ORIGINAL original Neverwinter Nights from 1991 (not the Bioware one) used that old SSI engine and is widely considered the first MMO.
Wish I had known about that back in the day. Probably would have bought the $199 starter pack that came with 3 extra pixels on my longsword so that it was longer than everyone else's longsword.
All games should be made in 720p and cost $40. Then you just buy a "cosmetic" upgrade to 4k for 100 CompanyCoinz, sold conveniently on the shop at a rate of $25 per 45 Coinz. See? I'm helping.
But nah, I've been gaming MMOs since 1995 or whenever it was that Meridian started. I've played a lot of them since then. I'm not lying when I said I was looking forward to this game. But the integrity of a company matters a lot more to me at 45 than it did at 25. So I guess it depends on where you're at in life and how fed up you are with the direction of monetization.
Ok... but there's a bit of pearl-clutching going on here:
I was looking forward to this game, but honestly these emails are a huge red flag. A lot of us have had enough with this psychological nonsense creeping into Every. Single. Aspect. Of gaming. Your target audience is comprised, in large part, of people with high degrees of susceptibility to exploitation. It's completely tonedeaf, especially in light of Diablo pulling the curtain back entirely with its awful monetization.
I'm pretty much fed up with the mind games at this point. And I know I'm not the only one. I hope the extra quick cash you make from fomo sales is worth losing players. Because you lost me.
Intrepid has been pretty up front about their monetization model from the get go. I don't agree with all of their decisions, but there's nothing in the cosmetic monetization that the Jelly-of-the-month Club hasn't been doing since they landed the Clark Griswald account in the 80s. That's not predatory, it's just a monthly product sub model.
As far as Diablo goes - or say Pearl Abyss - I guess you could conflate other games' monetization practices and react accordingly, but it's kind of a waste of time and energy.
Why are people crying about cosmetics? Nothing they offer you gives you any advantage. Nothing changed.
Cosmetics make you look sexy.
Everyone knows that Digital Barbie is the TRUE end-game of all MMOs.
Yes, I know an old guy addicted. He decorates his girls with various skins. I don't understand him.
How much those skins cost, which are advertised by email?
It seams that the latest packages are priced 75$, 150$, 250$ and 375$. If you already have a package with keys and such then you have an option to buy only the cosmetics you want to. I do not know how much those costs though.
If you already have a package with keys and such then you have an option to buy only the cosmetics you want to. I do not know how much those costs though.
Intrepid has been pretty up front about their monetization model from the get go.
It's one thing to say you're going to sell limited skins for cash. It's another to then sell those skins for $375 dollars a piece and spam out emails with all the fomo trimmings.
On top of a sub model, I find it to be quite egregious. I already don't like the idea of cosmetic monetization. Sure, they'll tell you it won't impact the design choices of their armor skins, or maybe it'll just be reskins / recolors for a time... But it always leads to the same place: Trash in-game armor appearances, and "I Am A Flying TimeLord with Chromatic Angel Wings" shop items.
As far as Diablo goes - or say Pearl Abyss - I guess you could conflate other games' monetization practices and react accordingly, but it's kind of a waste of time and energy.
Not any more or less a waste of time and energy than you chiming in. I've been gaming a long time. I've played along with a variety of monetization... DLC packs, Enhanced Editions, cosmetic items, loot boxes, pay to win, pay for convenience, pay to play, and whatever else.
Email marketing campaigns for $375 "OMG DON'T MISS OUT" character skins = Huge Red Flag.
On top of a sub model, I find it to be quite egregious. I already don't like the idea of cosmetic monetization. Sure, they'll tell you it won't impact the design choices of their armor skins, or maybe it'll just be reskins / recolors for a time... But it always leads to the same place: Trash in-game armor appearances, and "I Am A Flying TimeLord with Chromatic Angel Wings" shop items.
I don't find it egregious, but it's fine if you do. I'm fine to wait and see. I've been following and actively involved in the community for three years and haven't spent a penny, it's worked so far.
All fomo manipulation in marketing is inherently predatory. If it didn't work better than unlimited sale of an item, then they wouldn't use it.
It's not predatory. You're not a victim. You got an email because you signed up to get an email. No one is hustling you. No one's soliciting you without your permission. No one is harassing your immediate circle for money. There's no bait and switch. They just want you to buy something because you said you might be interested. If you're not, don't buy it.
I've been gaming a long time. I've played along with a variety of monetization... DLC packs, Enhanced Editions, cosmetic items, loot boxes, pay to win, pay for convenience, pay to play, and whatever else.
Email marketing campaigns for $375 "OMG DON'T MISS OUT" character skins = Huge Red Flag.
So have most folks here. The game of how to monetize games has changed. That's fine - it's just the market. I don't call REI when I get a spot sales email from them that's 1 day only. If I need gear I'll see, if I don't have time, then so what? I'd actually think your experience gaming for such a long time would give you perspective so you're less at the effect of those changes instead of more upset by them. But again, you do you, brother.
Why are people crying about cosmetics? Nothing they offer you gives you any advantage. Nothing changed.
As you can tell by my title, I can afford the cosmetics just fine. I think there is more nuance to be had from both sides of the cosmetic debate.
A predatory practice should be called out on no matter how little it effects the game play. I would hardly call the email predatory and quite frankly don't care for this particular take on the discussion. But their cosmetics policies definitely are predatory.
Steven plans post release to have 'Limited time, limited quantity' for a digital item as an example[1]. This artificial cap on quantity and time is definitely there to manipulate and pressure users and create a 'sense of urgency' to get people to buy things they would not otherwise buy. It's quite frankly something that deserves to be called out for being manipulative as much as NFT's and crypto get bashed on this forum.
Also if you are going to be trying to shut down 'people who don't have money's opinion it might be better if you buy something from Intrepid to get the title on the forum stating as such. It'll really boost your credibility on the topic as an elitist. There are cheaper ways to have more credibility though.
It's one thing to say you're going to sell limited skins for cash. It's another to then sell those skins for $375 dollars a piece and spam out emails with all the fomo trimmings.
Email marketing campaigns for $375 "OMG DON'T MISS OUT" character skins = Huge Red Flag.
Hold the phone!
You think that skins are $375 a piece ???!!!???
@Vic20
I dont get you.
You created a forum account to say "this studio doesnt have integrity". You told us that you wont play this game because at 45 this matters more to you.
I dont get you. I dont get it. Why are you still posting?
Why are you still posting. I know why I am; I'd like to see this thread deleted.
Do you even know why you are still posting?
$5 Accessory, plus $25 Future Accessories.
$30 Game Time.
If you value Cosmetics at $0, then Beta 2 costs $45.
$150 Expeditionary:
$20 Accessory plus Pet, plus $50 Future Cosmetics.
$60 Game Time.
If you value Cosmetics at $0, then Beta 1 and Beta 2 are $45 each.
$250 Voyager:
$45 Current Cosmetics, plus $100 Future Cosmetics.
$90 Game Time.
$90 Beta 1 and 2.
If you value Cosmetics at $0, then Alpha 2 is $70.
$375 Voyager Plus:
$120 Current Cosmetics, plus $125 Future Cosmetics.
$135 Game Time.
$160 Alpha 2, Beta 1 and Beta 2.
At this level, you'd either be tipping the developers $80, or valuing the Cosmetics for $80.
I don't see a problem here.
Especially since I don't actually have to spend a dime of my own money until it releases, and only pay if I want to Alpha or Beta.
Fomo is not a new marketing tool and it has been used in games for years. However, the use has a growing trend which is why it has started to get more attention. There is of course different level of use and not all of them are on the same line. People like it or not this is also happening in the Ashes, but to be fair, it is not that bad because they are only selling cosmetics and in monthly basis. Situation would be much worse if the limited-time events would contain gameplay related stuff and would be available more frequently.
Those who are interested, here is an article related to the fomo marketing in games. I personally found it interesting and illustrative.
The best thing about this post is seeing all the +500$ backers going full white knight against the OP that has a good point. "Last call on shop packages" I'm glad my email account already flags those as Spam every month.
Well OP can just blacklist the mails or redirect mails from intrepid towards a new map in the mail client. So that his main inbox is not filled up with all those 1x monthly update mails....I would agree with OP if he had like each week mails from intrepid that would be annoying. But 6 mails this year from them seems okey as a update because you know they still need to do some marketing, so what's the problem here?
The best thing about this post is seeing all the +500$ backers going full white knight against the OP that has a good point. "Last call on shop packages" I'm glad my email account already flags those as Spam every month.
But 6 mails this year from them seems okey as a update because you know they still need to do some marketing, so what's the problem here?
Monthly mail is not bad and I do not think that anyone is against that part anyway. It is the fomo marketing method in Ashes or in general which some people do not like. It is controversial because its aggressive nature to pressure customers buy more.
I was looking forward to this game, but honestly these emails are a huge red flag. A lot of us have had enough with this psychological nonsense creeping into Every. Single. Aspect. Of gaming. Your target audience is comprised, in large part, of people with high degrees of susceptibility to exploitation. It's completely tonedeaf, especially in light of Diablo pulling the curtain back entirely with its awful monetization.
I'm pretty much fed up with the mind games at this point. And I know I'm not the only one. I hope the extra quick cash you make from fomo sales is worth losing players. Because you lost me.
They’re recolors/variations of things that will exist in game.
It’s okay for people to support the game.
0
Options
Uncommon SenseMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The cosmetics were always a given. It was in the Kstarter brief backers knew a cash shop cosmetic only store was.
This issue regarding FOMO is not the cosmetic items its the method of delivery.
But as time goes on its clear that harpooning whales and testing the waters is washing the decks.
Claiming to respect the 'glorious ashes community' while also incorporating anti consumer marketing tactics is a conflict.
because somehow its more profitable to sell items to a select few in a specific period rather than offer the items indefinitely to everyone with unhindered access over the life of your gaming product...
Sure unsubbing from marketing emails is an end user option....but should it really be that kind of situation?
Most of the people defending FOMO are already invested and somehow making the ego inflated claim they are funding the game and all the poor plebs should be grateful, though most likely afraid they'll lose a sense of perceived superiority value if the arbitrary limitations are removed.
This isn't even the in game cash shop yet...where we would be purchasing cosmetics with 'Embers'.
At what point do these exclusive limited time offers conflict with the premise that no cosmetic items purchased will conflict with in game attainable cosmetics?
All this profiteering is doing is mudding the waters of what should be a clean sailing fully funded and community backed MMO.
Supporting anti consumer marketing/business practices will only do you and everyone else a disservice longterm.
What if supporting the game was just a flat (donation) option with no perk...? would all those you claim to be supporting the game still be making that statement...
I wonder.
The subscription based side cosmetic shop is starting to look like the other way round more an more...
Comments
Then again, I had a choice, didn't I?
The stranger's eyes lifted to the blood red cloud on the horizon.
'We have to move. It's not safe here.'
Wait until we enable the predatory forums. Mwahahahahaha!
I am sure it is hard to understand if I have not even said anything like that. LMAO
Op used "predatory fomo emails" on the title. I do not personally agree with that because those are not predatory fomo emails, rather just fomo emails.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You're giving me far too much credit. I'm flattered. But nah, I've been gaming MMOs since 1995 or whenever it was that Meridian started. I've played a lot of them since then. I'm not lying when I said I was looking forward to this game. But the integrity of a company matters a lot more to me at 45 than it did at 25. So I guess it depends on where you're at in life and how fed up you are with the direction of monetization.
Everyone knows that Digital Barbie is the TRUE end-game of all MMOs.
Heck yeah. Another OG. Vic20 was my first, but we also had a C64, so I used that the most. All those Forgotten Realms / Dragonlance SSI Gold Box titles... All the Ultimas (okay, some were better than others). I didn't know this until recently, but the ORIGINAL original Neverwinter Nights from 1991 (not the Bioware one) used that old SSI engine and is widely considered the first MMO.
Wish I had known about that back in the day. Probably would have bought the $199 starter pack that came with 3 extra pixels on my longsword so that it was longer than everyone else's longsword.
Ok... but there's a bit of pearl-clutching going on here:
Intrepid has been pretty up front about their monetization model from the get go. I don't agree with all of their decisions, but there's nothing in the cosmetic monetization that the Jelly-of-the-month Club hasn't been doing since they landed the Clark Griswald account in the 80s. That's not predatory, it's just a monthly product sub model.
As far as Diablo goes - or say Pearl Abyss - I guess you could conflate other games' monetization practices and react accordingly, but it's kind of a waste of time and energy.
It seams that the latest packages are priced 75$, 150$, 250$ and 375$. If you already have a package with keys and such then you have an option to buy only the cosmetics you want to. I do not know how much those costs though.
https://ashesofcreation.com/shop
The accessory is $5
The pet is $15
The mount is $20
And the ship/caravan, freehold skin and costume are all $25 each.
On top of a sub model, I find it to be quite egregious. I already don't like the idea of cosmetic monetization. Sure, they'll tell you it won't impact the design choices of their armor skins, or maybe it'll just be reskins / recolors for a time... But it always leads to the same place: Trash in-game armor appearances, and "I Am A Flying TimeLord with Chromatic Angel Wings" shop items.
All fomo manipulation in marketing is inherently predatory. If it didn't work better than unlimited sale of an item, then they wouldn't use it.
Not any more or less a waste of time and energy than you chiming in. I've been gaming a long time. I've played along with a variety of monetization... DLC packs, Enhanced Editions, cosmetic items, loot boxes, pay to win, pay for convenience, pay to play, and whatever else.
Email marketing campaigns for $375 "OMG DON'T MISS OUT" character skins = Huge Red Flag.
I don't find it egregious, but it's fine if you do. I'm fine to wait and see. I've been following and actively involved in the community for three years and haven't spent a penny, it's worked so far.
It's not predatory. You're not a victim. You got an email because you signed up to get an email. No one is hustling you. No one's soliciting you without your permission. No one is harassing your immediate circle for money. There's no bait and switch. They just want you to buy something because you said you might be interested. If you're not, don't buy it.
So have most folks here. The game of how to monetize games has changed. That's fine - it's just the market. I don't call REI when I get a spot sales email from them that's 1 day only. If I need gear I'll see, if I don't have time, then so what? I'd actually think your experience gaming for such a long time would give you perspective so you're less at the effect of those changes instead of more upset by them. But again, you do you, brother.
As you can tell by my title, I can afford the cosmetics just fine. I think there is more nuance to be had from both sides of the cosmetic debate.
A predatory practice should be called out on no matter how little it effects the game play. I would hardly call the email predatory and quite frankly don't care for this particular take on the discussion. But their cosmetics policies definitely are predatory.
Steven plans post release to have 'Limited time, limited quantity' for a digital item as an example[1]. This artificial cap on quantity and time is definitely there to manipulate and pressure users and create a 'sense of urgency' to get people to buy things they would not otherwise buy. It's quite frankly something that deserves to be called out for being manipulative as much as NFT's and crypto get bashed on this forum.
Also if you are going to be trying to shut down 'people who don't have money's opinion it might be better if you buy something from Intrepid to get the title on the forum stating as such. It'll really boost your credibility on the topic as an elitist. There are cheaper ways to have more credibility though.
Source: [1]
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
*coughs*
You think that skins are $375 a piece ???!!!???
I dont get you.
You created a forum account to say "this studio doesnt have integrity". You told us that you wont play this game because at 45 this matters more to you.
I dont get you. I dont get it. Why are you still posting?
Why are you still posting. I know why I am; I'd like to see this thread deleted.
Do you even know why you are still posting?
$5 Accessory $15 Pet, $20 Mount, $25 Building, $25 Caravan/Boat, $25 Costume
$75 Wayfarer:
$5 Accessory, plus $25 Future Accessories.
$30 Game Time.
If you value Cosmetics at $0, then Beta 2 costs $45.
$150 Expeditionary:
$20 Accessory plus Pet, plus $50 Future Cosmetics.
$60 Game Time.
If you value Cosmetics at $0, then Beta 1 and Beta 2 are $45 each.
$250 Voyager:
$45 Current Cosmetics, plus $100 Future Cosmetics.
$90 Game Time.
$90 Beta 1 and 2.
If you value Cosmetics at $0, then Alpha 2 is $70.
$375 Voyager Plus:
$120 Current Cosmetics, plus $125 Future Cosmetics.
$135 Game Time.
$160 Alpha 2, Beta 1 and Beta 2.
At this level, you'd either be tipping the developers $80, or valuing the Cosmetics for $80.
I don't see a problem here.
Especially since I don't actually have to spend a dime of my own money until it releases, and only pay if I want to Alpha or Beta.
Those who are interested, here is an article related to the fomo marketing in games. I personally found it interesting and illustrative.
https://game-wisdom.com/critical/fomo
Well OP can just blacklist the mails or redirect mails from intrepid towards a new map in the mail client. So that his main inbox is not filled up with all those 1x monthly update mails....I would agree with OP if he had like each week mails from intrepid that would be annoying. But 6 mails this year from them seems okey as a update because you know they still need to do some marketing, so what's the problem here?
Monthly mail is not bad and I do not think that anyone is against that part anyway. It is the fomo marketing method in Ashes or in general which some people do not like. It is controversial because its aggressive nature to pressure customers buy more.
They’re recolors/variations of things that will exist in game.
It’s okay for people to support the game.
This issue regarding FOMO is not the cosmetic items its the method of delivery.
But as time goes on its clear that harpooning whales and testing the waters is washing the decks.
Claiming to respect the 'glorious ashes community' while also incorporating anti consumer marketing tactics is a conflict.
because somehow its more profitable to sell items to a select few in a specific period rather than offer the items indefinitely to everyone with unhindered access over the life of your gaming product...
Sure unsubbing from marketing emails is an end user option....but should it really be that kind of situation?
Most of the people defending FOMO are already invested and somehow making the ego inflated claim they are funding the game and all the poor plebs should be grateful, though most likely afraid they'll lose a sense of perceived superiority value if the arbitrary limitations are removed.
This isn't even the in game cash shop yet...where we would be purchasing cosmetics with 'Embers'.
At what point do these exclusive limited time offers conflict with the premise that no cosmetic items purchased will conflict with in game attainable cosmetics?
All this profiteering is doing is mudding the waters of what should be a clean sailing fully funded and community backed MMO.
Supporting anti consumer marketing/business practices will only do you and everyone else a disservice longterm.
What if supporting the game was just a flat (donation) option with no perk...? would all those you claim to be supporting the game still be making that statement...
I wonder.
The subscription based side cosmetic shop is starting to look like the other way round more an more...