Speculation: Account balances like this are a manipulation to get you to spend more money by pushing on that desire to avoid loss.They don't have to be built that way. They could build them such that you can buy exactly the amount you need. But they don't. And why they don't is quiet clear to me at least.
I think this depends on a lot more than we would be able to speculate on right now.
If Intrepid put an item (or selection of items) up for around 50 embers (even if it is only available temporarily), that kind of kills any notion of them trying to manipulate players in to spending more money due to having an existing balance they may want to use.
Definition: "go to waste: be unused or expended to no purpose." [1]
Facts: You can't spend it elsewhere. Until you make another purchase it is wasted money. Embers are not money, they are a credit on your account you can only spend on IS.[2] Your choices are therefore to accept it is lost or buy more packs of embers in order to make an additional purchase. There is no in between. It is either wasted or used
Humans hate loss and avoid it when they can.[3]
Speculation: Account balances like this are a manipulation to get you to spend more money by pushing on that desire to avoid loss.They don't have to be built that way. They could build them such that you can buy exactly the amount you need. But they don't. And why they don't is quiet clear to me at least.
I don't agree with your use of loss aversion. Loss aversion implies someone is going to take something from you, meanwhile the excess embers remain on your character until you need them again for a future purchase. Loss aversion would be more like Nexon's premium currency NX, which disappears after 90 days of not being used. That is predatory.
I don't agree that loss aversion is limited to temporal use cases, but I accept it as a fair criticism from you. The principle of loss aversion in psychology can apply to a lot of things.
I would be a very happy man if Intrepid would allow us to simply type in the amount of Embers we wanted.
I would love this. Intrepid can still do their Ember packs and give percentages for bigger packs and black friday sales etc.
For example:
pack 1: 500 embers for $5
pack 2: 1500 embers for $13,99.
If a player needed 1700 embers they should be able to type that in for the same unit price as the nearest lower pack. Really basic math done on the fly on the website: $13.99/1500*1700=$15.86 for the 1700 embers.
It would give a clear signal to players that are sick and tired of greedy company practices like only selling currency packs that don't match what is sold in the store. A signal that says "Hey we are not like the other money-grubbing companies out there".
I would be a very happy man if Intrepid would allow us to simply type in the amount of Embers we wanted.
I would love this. Intrepid can still do their Ember packs and give percentages for bigger packs and black friday sales etc.
For example:
pack 1: 500 embers for $5
pack 2: 1500 embers for $13,99.
If a player needed 1700 embers they should be able to type that in for the same unit price as the nearest lower pack. Really basic math done on the fly on the website: $13.99/1500*1700=$15.86 for the 1700 embers.
It would give a clear signal to players that are sick and tired of greedy company practices like only selling currency packs that don't match what is sold in the store. A signal that says "Hey we are not like the other money-grubbing companies out there".
You know something else that would say this?
Lets say Intrepid want to sell a mount for $25, and so put it up for 2500 embers. If they have a pack that sells for $20 and gives you 2000 embers, but also gives you a 15% bonus (making it 2300), but they also have a $5 pack that gives you 500 with no bonus.
Thus, you spend the $25 they want for the mount, but have 300 embers left over to go towards what ever your next purchase is. That is a not greedy company to me.
While I would back the idea of being able to buy as many or as few embers in a transaction as possible, there is a major downside to this - transaction costs.
If they do this, they would NEED to hand those costs over to the purchaser, which since players can look at the above scenario and label it a bad thing from the company, people will without a doubt consider having to pay the transaction costs as a bad thing from the company.
I mean, if you could buy1 ember at a time, and Intrepid didn't hand those costs over, some disgruntled player with too much money (Steven, in Archeage) could literally sit there buying 1 ember over and over, and Intrepids costs would be significantly higher than the money they get. It would literally be a way to deplete Intrepids bank account.
This is why most games set the minimum purchase at $5 - transaction fees and exchange fees (when required) make even this amount barely worth it.
So set a minimum ember amount that would ensure it didn't cost them anything. Problem solved.
The problem with that is that people will still complain.
If you are the kind of person that would complain that you spent $25 to get a $25 mount, and you have 300 embers left over and that just isn't fair, then you will complain just as much if you only need 100 more embers but the lowest the stupid developers will let you buy is 500.
Basically, adding this functionality means a whole lot of work for Intrepid, in an attempt to eliminate complaints that it won't actually eliminate.
They are better off just having set packs, at set prices, that they can alter per region or currency, that they can set specials on if they wish, that they can alter the bonus of how they see fit.
yes, there will be complaints, but those people will complain anyway.
So set a minimum ember amount that would ensure it didn't cost them anything. Problem solved.
The problem with that is that people will still complain.
If you are the kind of person that would complain that you spent $25 to get a $25 mount, and you have 300 embers left over and that just isn't fair, then you will complain just as much if you only need 100 more embers but the lowest the stupid developers will let you buy is 500.
Basically, adding this functionality means a whole lot of work for Intrepid, in an attempt to eliminate complaints that it won't actually eliminate.
It's not a whole lot of extra work. That's really simple stuff to code.
As for the complaining, I don't see that at all. Most people understand the requirement for a minimum amount for the reasons you said.
So set a minimum ember amount that would ensure it didn't cost them anything. Problem solved.
The problem with that is that people will still complain.
If you are the kind of person that would complain that you spent $25 to get a $25 mount, and you have 300 embers left over and that just isn't fair, then you will complain just as much if you only need 100 more embers but the lowest the stupid developers will let you buy is 500.
Basically, adding this functionality means a whole lot of work for Intrepid, in an attempt to eliminate complaints that it won't actually eliminate.
It's not a whole lot of extra work. That's really simple stuff to code.
As for the complaining, I don't see that at all. Most people understand the requirement for a minimum amount for the reasons you said.
Most people absolutely do not understand those reasons. Most people don't even know there is a transaction fee, or an exchange fee - let alone understanding that these costs need to be covered by the consumer one way or the other.
You are right that the coding part would be easy(ish) though. I am not saying that would be the hard part.
The hard part is in the exchange scale for each currency - because as I said, you do not simply change at the current exchange rate. You charge based on what the market can handle, but that often means a different scale from the less expensive packs to the more expensive.
Just because one pack is $5 and another is $20, that doesn't always mean that the smaller pack in another market is X and the larger pack is X*4. In some markets, that just doesn't work.
This is why they pick a set pack, and then work out what that pack should be in each market.
So set a minimum ember amount that would ensure it didn't cost them anything. Problem solved.
The problem with that is that people will still complain.
If you are the kind of person that would complain that you spent $25 to get a $25 mount, and you have 300 embers left over and that just isn't fair, then you will complain just as much if you only need 100 more embers but the lowest the stupid developers will let you buy is 500.
Basically, adding this functionality means a whole lot of work for Intrepid, in an attempt to eliminate complaints that it won't actually eliminate.
They are better off just having set packs, at set prices, that they can alter per region or currency, that they can set specials on if they wish, that they can alter the bonus of how they see fit.
yes, there will be complaints, but those people will complain anyway.
It really looks like you are being a contrarian just to be a contrarian here, because what you are saying just isn't true. Just because a solution isn't 100% perfect for the customer all the time, doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented for the 95% of the time it is.
As for the whole extra work for Intrepid thing, it isn't extra work at all once it's coded. All the deals on packs still have to be made exactly the same way either way. The custom ember amount price is dynamically generated from those pack deals, with zero work required. All you get are more satisfied customers for the most part.
It really looks like you are being a contrarian just to be a contrarian here, because what you are saying just isn't true.
My dude, I haven't even begun to get in to detail here.
When you are selling something in multiple regions, you have multiple sets of laws to take in to account. Some of these laws include things like the need to include all transaction fees and such in the advertised price for an item. This in itself makes scaling unrealistic for anything other than large companies.
I mean, you can't sell embers for a set amount per ember, and then charge a transaction fee on top of that if doing that isn't legal everywhere you want to do it. Keep in mind, in most of the world, the price you advertise an item for is the only price you are allowed to charge - there can't be any additional fees (regardless of whether hidden or not).
It's true that money in the bank is wasted money??
Actually yes. Inflation will make your money waste away while the bank gains a profit for said money. So yes, money deposited in a bank account is stale, loses its value overtime.
Definition: "go to waste: be unused or expended to no purpose." [1]
Facts: You can't spend it elsewhere. Until you make another purchase it is wasted money. Embers are not money, they are a credit on your account you can only spend on IS.[2] Your choices are therefore to accept it is lost or buy more packs of embers in order to make an additional purchase. There is no in between. It is either wasted or used
Humans hate loss and avoid it when they can.[3]
Speculation: Account balances like this are a manipulation to get you to spend more money by pushing on that desire to avoid loss.They don't have to be built that way. They could build them such that you can buy exactly the amount you need. But they don't. And why they don't is quiet clear to me at least.
Excellent posts, thanks! This is way I want something more transparent. I don't like sales, because those rarely are "sales". Most of the time they hide something. Plus doing a sale on a virtual asset means nothing, since the price can be whatever IS wants.
In the end all it does is obscure the price, makes calculations harder and force you to have a rest, and if you never want to buy again, you have lost those embers (money).
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
It's true that money in the bank is wasted money??
Actually yes. Inflation will make your money waste away while the bank gains a profit for said money. So yes, money deposited in a bank account is stale, loses its value overtime.
Depends on how long the money is in there, when you take it out, and what you use it for.
In my opinion issue would be solved for everyone if when the game comes out, items listed in the shop said something like: 100 embers ($10) Just do the math for the customer. Customer can decide if that item is worth that price. And let us buy whatever specific amount of embers we want so people don't keep buying the "best deal" pack of embers over and over trying to make the most of their remaining embers and all that mobile cash shop nonsense. No need to attack Intrepid about it before we see the whole picture, but no harm in asking them questions about it.
Comments
If Intrepid put an item (or selection of items) up for around 50 embers (even if it is only available temporarily), that kind of kills any notion of them trying to manipulate players in to spending more money due to having an existing balance they may want to use.
I don't agree that loss aversion is limited to temporal use cases, but I accept it as a fair criticism from you. The principle of loss aversion in psychology can apply to a lot of things.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
Wasted is when it is never spent.
Your definition is like saying that money in the bank waiting to be spent is wasted money.
Which is absurd.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
I would love this. Intrepid can still do their Ember packs and give percentages for bigger packs and black friday sales etc.
For example:
pack 1: 500 embers for $5
pack 2: 1500 embers for $13,99.
If a player needed 1700 embers they should be able to type that in for the same unit price as the nearest lower pack. Really basic math done on the fly on the website: $13.99/1500*1700=$15.86 for the 1700 embers.
It would give a clear signal to players that are sick and tired of greedy company practices like only selling currency packs that don't match what is sold in the store. A signal that says "Hey we are not like the other money-grubbing companies out there".
You know something else that would say this?
Lets say Intrepid want to sell a mount for $25, and so put it up for 2500 embers. If they have a pack that sells for $20 and gives you 2000 embers, but also gives you a 15% bonus (making it 2300), but they also have a $5 pack that gives you 500 with no bonus.
Thus, you spend the $25 they want for the mount, but have 300 embers left over to go towards what ever your next purchase is. That is a not greedy company to me.
While I would back the idea of being able to buy as many or as few embers in a transaction as possible, there is a major downside to this - transaction costs.
If they do this, they would NEED to hand those costs over to the purchaser, which since players can look at the above scenario and label it a bad thing from the company, people will without a doubt consider having to pay the transaction costs as a bad thing from the company.
I mean, if you could buy1 ember at a time, and Intrepid didn't hand those costs over, some disgruntled player with too much money (Steven, in Archeage) could literally sit there buying 1 ember over and over, and Intrepids costs would be significantly higher than the money they get. It would literally be a way to deplete Intrepids bank account.
This is why most games set the minimum purchase at $5 - transaction fees and exchange fees (when required) make even this amount barely worth it.
The problem with that is that people will still complain.
If you are the kind of person that would complain that you spent $25 to get a $25 mount, and you have 300 embers left over and that just isn't fair, then you will complain just as much if you only need 100 more embers but the lowest the stupid developers will let you buy is 500.
Basically, adding this functionality means a whole lot of work for Intrepid, in an attempt to eliminate complaints that it won't actually eliminate.
They are better off just having set packs, at set prices, that they can alter per region or currency, that they can set specials on if they wish, that they can alter the bonus of how they see fit.
yes, there will be complaints, but those people will complain anyway.
It's not a whole lot of extra work. That's really simple stuff to code.
As for the complaining, I don't see that at all. Most people understand the requirement for a minimum amount for the reasons you said.
Most people absolutely do not understand those reasons. Most people don't even know there is a transaction fee, or an exchange fee - let alone understanding that these costs need to be covered by the consumer one way or the other.
You are right that the coding part would be easy(ish) though. I am not saying that would be the hard part.
The hard part is in the exchange scale for each currency - because as I said, you do not simply change at the current exchange rate. You charge based on what the market can handle, but that often means a different scale from the less expensive packs to the more expensive.
Just because one pack is $5 and another is $20, that doesn't always mean that the smaller pack in another market is X and the larger pack is X*4. In some markets, that just doesn't work.
This is why they pick a set pack, and then work out what that pack should be in each market.
It really looks like you are being a contrarian just to be a contrarian here, because what you are saying just isn't true. Just because a solution isn't 100% perfect for the customer all the time, doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented for the 95% of the time it is.
As for the whole extra work for Intrepid thing, it isn't extra work at all once it's coded. All the deals on packs still have to be made exactly the same way either way. The custom ember amount price is dynamically generated from those pack deals, with zero work required. All you get are more satisfied customers for the most part.
When you are selling something in multiple regions, you have multiple sets of laws to take in to account. Some of these laws include things like the need to include all transaction fees and such in the advertised price for an item. This in itself makes scaling unrealistic for anything other than large companies.
I mean, you can't sell embers for a set amount per ember, and then charge a transaction fee on top of that if doing that isn't legal everywhere you want to do it. Keep in mind, in most of the world, the price you advertise an item for is the only price you are allowed to charge - there can't be any additional fees (regardless of whether hidden or not).
Actually yes. Inflation will make your money waste away while the bank gains a profit for said money. So yes, money deposited in a bank account is stale, loses its value overtime.
Excellent posts, thanks! This is way I want something more transparent. I don't like sales, because those rarely are "sales". Most of the time they hide something. Plus doing a sale on a virtual asset means nothing, since the price can be whatever IS wants.
In the end all it does is obscure the price, makes calculations harder and force you to have a rest, and if you never want to buy again, you have lost those embers (money).
Edit: Or attacking each other