Artificial Scarcity and Emotional Manipulation

The recent poll about daily rewards and other related cosmetic discussions have led me to delve a bit into the nature of artificial scarcity and the manipulative nature of withholding as a means of encouraging someone to do something. I've had many, many, words run through my head in regards to the topic (that in part kept me up last night) but in an effort to remain civil I shall be succinct.

I find the use of a monthly deadline to encourage people to give money, relatively speaking 'Right Now', to a game (that is only in alpha) rather than giving a reasonable time for love and appreciation to blossom into a heart of giving, to be emotionally manipulative.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Vhaeyne

Kuldjux wrote: »

Is this the right room for an argument?

Yes, friend?

mcstackerson

Caeryl wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Ok, what other way would you recommend giving value to these cosmetics pre-launch?

Without a game, cosmetics have no value. If the game was out, you would be able to use the cosmetic as soon as you buy it but since it's not, there is no reason to buy cosmetics.

If you believe ALL FOMO marketing is bad then is kickstarter and all crowdfunding sites that give rewards to backers bad? What about steam sales? Temporary sales are FOMO marketing, do you think all temporary sales are bad. What about limited time events in games that have limited time rewards? That's technically FOMO, are all of those bad?

Is it wrong for them to reward players for taking a risk and supporting their development before they have finished it?

The value should come from whether people like the aesthetic of the items or not, if they would want to use them. Value should never be sourced from artificial exclusivity. People will buy $25 skins whether they’re limited or not, just look at League of Legends, or FFXIV, or WoW, or ESO. Buying these packs is not ”being rewarded” in any way, especially at this stage. They simply bought a product, maybe one they would’ve bought anyway, but definitely one that’s limited availability played a role in their decision. These are not exhaustible resources being offered. An infinite number of these designs can exist in the game with no additional cost to Intrepid, so they should all remain in the store indefinitely, or on a cycling basis. These are the most respectful ways to approach a cash shop.

I’ve already said, as have many others, that not all FOMO is malicious, but all FOMO tactics revolve around getting more (money, time, goods) without any additional investment of resources. So while temporary sales, launch pricing, and timed events fall into the broad category, they are not malicious. However, monthly retiring cosmetics for an unfinished (yet unplayable) game tied into a pre-purchase of $300+ dollars, sold much higher and with more frequency than they would of they simply stayed in the store or cycled through regularly, is what I would consider malicious FOMO tactics.

Kickstarter is toeing a fine line and I would actually call the practice unsound in general. Between the asset flips, false promises, investing with no (or very little) tangible return, people who dip with their funds never to be seen again. It’s a system extremely prone to abuses.

On top of all of this, the basic point is, if it was about supporting the game, why make the items limited at all? Someone will want to buy an older design for the same price as a newer one, there’s no loss there for Intrepid. What benefit does the monthly time window bring to players? It doesn’t endear new supporters to see a cash shop existing for an incomplete game. There’s no pride to be had in “I paid for this” as opposed to a cosmetic earned via skill/time/dedication within the game. Your argument alone shows how these marketing methods are manipulative, they’ve got you paying for exclusivity rather than the design being offered. If you say cosmetics have no value without a game, then you’ve acknowledged that (to you) their full price is about the limited availability.

You realize that without a game you can't appreciate a cosmetic's aesthetics right? Without exclusivity, only reason to buy cosmetics is to give money to the devs. The smart thing to do would be to wait until the game comes out to buy cosmetics as that's when you will be able to start using them and will be able to compare the catalog to see what you really want.

You say exclusivity shouldn't add value but what about in game rewards like the league skins rewarded to gold+ players or wows glad mounts and gear. Are those systems wrong, does being rewarded not gain any value from also being exclusive to the players who are able to earn them over that period of time?

There are people in this thread sololy using the presence of FOMO as the argument for why this is bad. Not saying you are one. In my post i was trying to redirect that argument to what the real issue people seem to have which is that these skins are only available for a limited time so we can discuss that.

To get to your point, I think you can use multiple factors can give something value. You can buy something because you like the aesthetics as well as other reasons like wanting to support the game or having an item people won't be able to get in the future. I wouldn't just buy something because it's exclusive.

Heruwolf wrote: »

Collectors lives won't realistically change if they don't get to purchase something they've been trying to collect, but they will have an emotional response if they can't get the item. You don't get to decide what people get enjoyment out of, and you especially don't get to decide if something will or will not impact someone's life.

I'm going to be a little hyperbolic here but does this mean if i get enjoyment out of having the best gear in the game the devs should just give that to me because they don't know how it will impact me in life? What about never dying the game, do i get to be immortal because the devs don't know how me dying in the game could effect me in real life.

Caeryl

mcstackerson wrote: »

You realize that without a game you can't appreciate a cosmetic's aesthetics right? Without exclusivity, only reason to buy cosmetics is to give money to the devs. The smart thing to do would be to wait until the game comes out to buy cosmetics as that's when you will be able to start using them and will be able to compare the catalog to see what you really want.

You say exclusivity shouldn't add value but what about in game rewards like the league skins rewarded to gold+ players or wows glad mounts and gear. Are those systems wrong, does being rewarded not gain any value from also being exclusive to the players who are able to earn them over that period of time?

I very clearly said that I consider malicious FOMO to rely on intent to make more money from people than they would otherwise pay if not on a time crunch, monthly or weekly deals. Personally I consider a 4 month availability period to be out of the realm of FOMO tactics.

League’s ranked rewards are for playing the game, and are not time-limited, so it’s not even FOMO in the broadest definition. The closest they have the FOMO is the cycling holiday skins, but those come back every year for purchase on a regular schedule.

WoW’s earnable mounts that are rewarded for skilled play aren’t FOMO for the same reasons, obviously.

It’s not manipulative to point out how a company manipulates players via marketing gimmicks that have been proven to work.

Heruwolf

mcstackerson wrote: »

You realize that without a game you can't appreciate a cosmetic's aesthetics right? Without exclusivity, only reason to buy cosmetics is to give money to the devs. The smart thing to do would be to wait until the game comes out to buy cosmetics as that's when you will be able to start using them and will be able to compare the catalog to see what you really want.

Why isn't supporting the game enough of a reason? Why do they need money if the game is fully funded? Why isn't "Because I want that item when the game releases" enough of a reason? Why can't the exclusivity be "before the game launches"?

mcstackerson wrote: »

You say exclusivity shouldn't add value but what about in game rewards like the league skins rewarded to gold+ players or wows glad mounts and gear. Are those systems wrong, does being rewarded not gain any value from also being exclusive to the players who are able to earn them over that period of time?

Those are rewards based on times spent, not money. Those are exclusive rewards based on skill, not money. Exclusivity should ABSOLUTELY add value to an item. That item should not have a money value added to it. Frankly I'm sick of paying for extra bs in a game in general just because the devs want extra money. If they need more money for future expansions then I want to pay for THAT in my subscription fee/box cost. I don't want to pay an exorbitant amount of money for an "exclusive" cosmetic item because it's artificially limited. It doesn't show that you are good at the game, it doesn't show that you spent time to grind something out. It shows you were in the right place at the right time and had money to burn or are bad with your money. It's the MONEY part that's frustrating here. There is no reward but companies, Intrepid included, are using the exclusivity portion to make it FEEL like there is a reward despite there being none.

mcstackerson wrote: »

There are people in this thread sololy using the presence of FOMO as the argument for why this is bad. Not saying you are one. In my post i was trying to redirect that argument to what the real issue people seem to have which is that these skins are only available for a limited time so we can discuss that.

My issues isn't that they are limited, my issue is that they are limited AND cost money. Hence why I keep going back to the use a FOMO to generate money for a fully funded game.

mcstackerson wrote: »

To get to your point, I think you can use multiple factors can give something value. You can buy something because you like the aesthetics as well as other reasons like wanting to support the game or having an item people won't be able to get in the future. I wouldn't just buy something because it's exclusive.

Again with the "I" statements. This isn't a matter of any ONE person specifically, it's a matter of perception. You can absolutely use multiple factors to determine whether or not something has value to you. You can absolutely buy something that is aesthetically pleasing to you as well as wanting to support the game, but you can't just do that with this store. You have to buy a package that will then unlock the ability for you to purchase ala carte afterwards. That package MAY have multiple items that you like it also, very likely, has multiple items that you dislike. And then after that you can purchase items that you BOTH like and want to support the devs.

mcstackerson wrote: »

Heruwolf wrote: »

Collectors lives won't realistically change if they don't get to purchase something they've been trying to collect, but they will have an emotional response if they can't get the item. You don't get to decide what people get enjoyment out of, and you especially don't get to decide if something will or will not impact someone's life.

I'm going to be a little hyperbolic here but does this mean if i get enjoyment out of having the best gear in the game the devs should just give that to me because they don't know how it will impact me in life?

No, it means that you should acquire it through in game means because that's how it's accessible and you are ALREADY paying $15/month for the enjoyment of the game. Now if the best gear in the game was purchasable via real world money, I would say you should straight quit the game.

mcstackerson wrote: »

What about never dying the game, do i get to be immortal because the devs don't know how me dying in the game could effect me in real life.

So you want the devs to change a CORE gameplay mechanic solely because your unstable emotionally and probably should seek help? Come on, that's a ridiculous question designed to intentionally back me into a corner by trying to equate a core gameplay mechanic to a company using a FOMO marketing tactic while a large portion of the community is writing it off as a "way to support the game". A game that is FULLY FUNDED might I add, again.

Heruwolf

Caeryl wrote: »

WoW’s earnable mounts that are rewarded for skilled play aren’t FOMO for the same reasons, obviously.

While I'm on your side in general here, I would argue that WoW's earnable mounts have started to become FOMO because of the ability to purchase in game gold and then purchase carries to get said mounts, and then they are also only available during that tier for the Cutting Edge reward. However, that's a different debate and not really relevant to this conversation.

Songcaller

I'll be devil's advocate and state 'The Game is fully funded' to the initial concept. I do not know if 'The Game is fully funded' after the stretch goals were added. In clarification, I assume the kick-starter money and all money gleaned through the packages have enabled the stretch goals.

To be succinct, the stretch goals are quite substantial stretch goals. The game is slated to be better because of the stretch goals too.

Heruwolf

@Neurath The stretch goals, IIRC were reached DURING the kickstarter campaign. If they realized the needed more money, that's something different entirely. I believe that if you are going to set a stretch goal attached to a money value, you should be able to have the money for that stretch goal at the point that the monetary value is set, no?

Songcaller

I won't pretend to be a game developer, however, Dark Ages of Camelot was fully funded up until release. Then when they went to release they had no money for servers. They tried to get credit but because they were fully funded to release they had no credit rating and thus couldn't get credit for the servers. They were rejected by publishers repeatedly until the last publisher they asked financed the servers. The rest is history.

With IS and Ashes, they were going to be published in Europe and Russia by My.com and the Russian equivalent. Fortunately they will self publish in these regions now. I like to believe the community has enabled said turn around. It is not cheap to fund servers and self-publish. Alpha 2 will be persistent. I like to believe the thousands of people who have paid for Alpha 2 have helped cover the server costs.

Caeryl

Heruwolf wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

WoW’s earnable mounts that are rewarded for skilled play aren’t FOMO for the same reasons, obviously.

While I'm on your side in general here, I would argue that WoW's earnable mounts have started to become FOMO because of the ability to purchase in game gold and then purchase carries to get said mounts, and then they are also only available during that tier for the Cutting Edge reward. However, that's a different debate and not really relevant to this conversation.

Jeez that sounds like a nightmare for so many reasons. I sure won’t disagree that a lot of games are going out of their way to frustrate players into spending cash. Between the gamble boxes and things like FO76 degradation mechanics, it’s almost a competition of which company can be the most player-hostile.

Everdark

Heruwolf wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

You realize that without a game you can't appreciate a cosmetic's aesthetics right? Without exclusivity, only reason to buy cosmetics is to give money to the devs. The smart thing to do would be to wait until the game comes out to buy cosmetics as that's when you will be able to start using them and will be able to compare the catalog to see what you really want.

Why isn't supporting the game enough of a reason? Why do they need money if the game is fully funded? Why isn't "Because I want that item when the game releases" enough of a reason? Why can't the exclusivity be "before the game launches"?

A few blunt points.

1. You suggest that FoMo marketing is predatory and emotionally manipulative. News flash...ALL marketing of any kind is manipulation. Manipulating the emotions that influence the purchase decision is literally the definition. If you feel thats predatory, grow up. Even if this were an example of FoMo marketing (and I don't agree that it is) it is no more emotionally manipulative than a car commercial.

2. Why do they need money if the game is fully funded? Why isn't "Because I want that item when the game releases" enough of a reason? Why can't the exclusivity be "before the game launches"?

So because you want you should have? That is the definition of childish thinking. You aren't entitled to anything - read that again. In what world should something of value (an exclusive cosmetic) not need to be earned? None. Though it seems your issue is with earning it with money instead of in the game - I'll address that in a moment.

3. "Those are rewards based on times spent, not money. Those are exclusive rewards based on skill, not money. Exclusivity should ABSOLUTELY add value to an item. That item should not have a money value added to it."

You clearly don't actually understand the concepts of supply and demand, scarcity, or even money. Money is a MEDIUM of exchange used to measure the value of everything else. Put simply, if something has a perceived value, that value can be measured in money. Your statement above that an item shouldn't have a money value attached to it is literally impossible. Moreoever, since 99% of us earn money with our time working, money and what you buy with it is in fact "based on times spent". Just having an exclusive item the likes of which you're describing would add value to the account with said item unlocked, and raise the money value someone would pay for the account on eBay.

4. "I don't want to pay an exorbitant amount of money for an "exclusive" cosmetic item because it's artificially limited. It doesn't show that you are good at the game, it doesn't show that you spent time to grind something out."

Artificially limited? Your gear in game is artificially limited by the game rules that determine loot tables, level drops, encounter loot, etc... the exclusivity is just limited by time spent in game instead of real world currency.

5. "It doesn't show that you are good at the game, it doesn't show that you spent time to grind something out."

That is literally the definition of cash shop cosmetics, and the player communities typically value the items accordingly. Value is perceived and subject to the whims of the community. Raid based cosmetics are frequently valued far higher than similar cash shop cosmetics simply because of the bragging rights the community associates with them. In that way, the community self regulates cash shop items to a degree. Furthermore, since for most of us money is a measure of time spent working, it actually does show that you spent time grinding something out, that something just wasn't the game.

6. "My issues isn't that they are limited, my issue is that they are limited AND cost money. Hence why I keep going back to the use a FOMO to generate money for a fully funded game."

I already explained above why what you're saying in the first sentence is impossible, but let's hypothesize for a moment. How exactly do you plan on having an item be limited and not have it cost money I wonder? Should it just be the first few people who earn it get to have it? Well then the people with more money that can work less and play more earn it first - still costs money just indirectly. Maybe players compete for a limited number and it changes hands among the top 1000 players - same result...

As to the second paragraph. It is up to everyone to take responsibility for their own decision making. The only one who determines whether purchasing a cosmetic is worth it or not is you - and not you nor anyone else gets to claim "that the big bad marketer made me do it". Otherwise I've got a limited supply invisible and intangible building to sell you.

7. "You have to buy a package that will then unlock the ability for you to purchase ala carte afterwards. That package MAY have multiple items that you like it also, very likely, has multiple items that you dislike. And then after that you can purchase items that you BOTH like and want to support the devs."

In what world do the devs owe you a bespoke purchasing experience? Should you be able to purchase specific game zones you like and leave out others? Maybe I won't purchase the starting zones and reduce my monthly cost to $12 a month. Bundling the cosmetics in expensive packages is literally the way they retain their exclusivity and therefor value. If you just got to pick and choose they would be less limited and be valued less accordingly.

8. "a company using a FOMO marketing tactic while a large portion of the community is writing it off as a "way to support the game". A game that is FULLY FUNDED might I add, again."

I'd like to think I've already addressed the FoMo piece of this (by all means, please argue otherwise), which leaves the bit about being fully funded.

Number one - the game isn't done and cost overruns on large projects are extremely common and often significant. It is more than possible that the end product ends up costing more than the anticipated cost that's been "fully funded".

Number two - even if the above were not a possibility, so what? The developer isn't entitled to making a profit? It's those same profits that frequently drive additional game content in case you were unaware.

Frankly your arguments so far seem both entitled and lacking in any concept of personal responsibility as it pertains to purchasing decisions.

Noaani

Heruwolf wrote: »

So basically what you are saying is that you're a minority and very picky about your friends?

No, what I'm saying is what I said - which is that the statement made that FOMO effecta everyone is incorrect.

Anything other than this one point that you are getting out of that post is you inferring something that isn't there.

To reiterate my point on FOMO in this thread, I don't consider this FOMO at all, because there is nothing to fear if you do miss out on a cosmetic.

If someone is so attached to the way their character looks and feels that cosmetics are *the* key aspect of the game, I still don't feel this is FOMO because if such a person is that focused on the look of their character, they surely wouldn't want what essentially amounts to an appearance onsie, a person that dedicated to the appearance of their character that they fear missing out on a cosmetic would surely be someone that would rather piece together their own look - something that can only be done with in game items.

If there is someone out there (and I can't possibly see how this could be more than one person) who is so invested in how their character looks that they will actually be afraid of missing out on a few appearances, and yet is uninterested in actually building a look for their chactcter themself, then they need to be reminded that it is intrepids best interests to continually try and make better, more appealing appearances for players to purchase, even if that is subjective. This means that eventually there is absolutely going to be something that this person will like more,and there is a damn good chance that this could even happen before the game goes live.

I am also aware that there are people out there that really care about roleplaying, and it may well be that there is a cosmetic item that is up for sale that would fit in perfectly with a character they wish to play. However, since the argument against FOMO dictate that the issue with it is that it causes people to buy a thing they may not have bought otherwise, someone that sees a cosmetic they actually really want is not within the purview of any discussion related to FOMO, as they want the item regardless of its scarcity.

It also seems more than worth pointing out that since Ashes is a game where the actual content of the game may change on you while you are offline, if you are susceptible to FOMO, this is probably a really bad game for you to get in to. Every single day you will fear that you are going to miss out on something. In that regard, making cosmetics only available for a limited time is 100% on brand for what we should all expect from the game itself.

If we then completely disregard all of the above reasons as to why I don't think what Intrepid are doing actually count as FOMO (specifically due to the word "fear" in that abbreviation), and if we just assume that it is, I disagree with most posters here as to the severity of it.

People have labeled Intrepids actions here as predatory. Clearly, these comments can only be made by someone that has not looked at gaming at all for a decade or so.

When there are gaming companies out there literally encouraging minors to gamble, when there are gaming companies out there that are literally selling off in game progress, when there are gaming companies selling off advantages against other players attempting to call a gaming company selling appearance items as predatory is disingenuous at best.

All up, these points lead me to really just not understanding what the fuck the complaints are all about. You would need to disagree with every single point above in order to actually think it worth complaining about the way Intrepid are running their store, and I would be surprised if anyone out there did.

As a final point, I'll add that there is no way anyone on these forums can look at Intrerpid as a whole and proclaim them more predatory than EA or Activision. As such, I assume you are all even more active against both of those companies and their actual predatory - to the point of potentially being illegal - business practices, and I would honestly really like a link to where you are having those conversations so that I can join in.

Maezriel

@Noaani you spent the better part of an entire day lecturing me on the definition of emotional manipulation. If I have to stop using that term as a synonym for emotional marketing then it's only fair that you stop thinking that your personal opinion on the cosmetics as the definition for whether or not the store practices FOMO.

The fact that the cosmetics are limited time makes it, by definition, FOMO.

I have no interest in buying a car so if I see an ad for a limited sale on a car it doesn't effect me in any way whatsoever...doesn't make it any less of a FOMO strategy.

Vhaeyne

Noaani wrote: »

It also seems more than worth pointing out that since Ashes is a game where the actual content of the game may change on you while you are offline, if you are susceptible to FOMO, this is probably a really bad game for you to get in to. Every single day you will fear that you are going to miss out on something. In that regard, making cosmetics only available for a limited time is 100% on brand for what we should all expect from the game itself.

I will never log out! I will miss nothing!

Yet still something major could happen five nodes away that I only learn about after the fact...

Maezriel

There are far too many people in this trainwreck of a thread thinking that their personal ability to magically resist all forms of advertising is in anyway a defense of the store. It's not. It's at best childish and at worst a self masturbatory ego boost.

There's not a single human on planet Earth capable of resisting the pull of marketing. Whether it's a sale on chicken in the grocery store or a limited time cosmetic for a game you will eventually fall prey to clever advertising and marketing strategies. Not one person on this forum is special enough to put themselves on a pedestal and attack someone else's self control. Are some people more susceptible to FOMO tactics than others? Sure, but, again, that's not on any of us to call out and try to correct.

We don't have a large enough community to have half of it's man-children telling other man-children to grow up. So when talking about whether or not it's healthy for the game, we should keep it about the store and the game and not about the effects marketing has on the individual people in this forum.

The most consistent defense I've seen for the store is that someone wanted to support the devs and the cosmetics were merely an added bonus. That's fine, that's a perfectly fine opinion to have on the matter and I can respect it.

However, for many it's the exact opposite where the cosmetics are the reason they spend money and supporting the devs is the cherry on top. I would also argue that the vast majority of cash shops are built exactly this way so it's easy to see why people would have this thought coming into AoC.

Notwithstanding the irony of my own hypocrisy and to reiterate one last time: Regardless where you stand on the issue you should try to stay on the argument itself and resist the urge to call people out.

Jeetoph

I don't use to fall for FOMO tactics so I don't care if i don't get cosmetics that were offered in the past. I do consider them as a bonus for pre-ordering like some mentionned. That said if I know the bonus is going to change regularly I may as well wait for something I like.
And this is where I have mixed feelings about the pre-order design. I just want to pre-order the game but to this date I didn't because I gamble with the idea that next month the bonus will be better. It's the first time I encounter this situation.

EDIT : I just realized it can be seen as FOMO working on me because I "fear" of missing out something in the future. Oh well... ^^'

Vhaeyne

Maezriel wrote: »

There are far too many people in this trainwreck of a thread thinking that their personal ability to magically resist all forms of advertising is in anyway a defense of the store. It's not. It's at best childish and at worst a self masturbatory ego boost.

There's not a single human on planet Earth capable of resisting the pull of marketing. Whether it's a sale on chicken in the grocery store or a limited time cosmetic for a game you will eventually fall prey to clever advertising and marketing strategies. Not one person on this forum is special enough to put themselves on a pedestal and attack someone else's self control. Are some people more susceptible to FOMO tactics than others? Sure, but, again, that's not on any of us to call out and try to correct.

We don't have a large enough community to have half of it's man-children telling other man-children to grow up. So when talking about whether or not it's healthy for the game, we should keep it about the store and the game and not about the effects marketing has on the individual people in this forum.

I don't think I specifically called anyone out myself. If someone felt targeted by any of my comment's, I was not trying to be malicious. I know I come off as an asshole, but I try to keep things generalized and humorous for the most part.

That said, the whole thing that made this thread interesting to me was the "Emotional Manipulation" angle. Otherwise its another "I don't like it" thread which I would try to skip. If we just kept the argument about the store, and the game I feel like the thread would have not been interesting to me enough to participate.

The same could be said for all of the marketing discussion because it deals with some of the same psychology as the "Emotional Manipulation".

Maezriel wrote: »

The most consistent defense I've seen for the store is that someone wanted to support the devs and the cosmetics were merely an added bonus. That's fine, that's a perfectly fine opinion to have on the matter and I can respect it.

Which is mostly where I land as a whole.
I also think that the current system is the most fair system I can think of where everyone could have whatever they want, and the cosmetics still be somewhat special.

I bet there are more convoluted systems they could have tried, but the monthly supporter pack is simple and elegant.

Maezriel wrote: »

However, for many it's the exact opposite where the cosmetics are the reason they spend money and supporting the devs is the cherry on top. I would also argue that the vast majority of cash shops are built exactly this way so it's easy to see why people would have this thought coming into AoC.

I really want to blame Modern MMOs for this. Modern MMOs teach that collecting all of the mounts and cosmetics is good because when the player base steam rolls the three days worth of content they gated to be eight weeks of content. The only thing left to do is encourage your player base collect for the next three to six months.

As I understand AOC, the big idea is to get players involved in a living world and let them deal with each other for months at a time. Instead of relying mainly on narrative patches, and collect-a-tons. I see collecting as a misinterpretation of the focus of the game. This is why I don't care about FOMO.

I maintain that the completionism/collector mindset is the root of the FOMO, not Intrepid policy's. Which I why I was soo keen on talking about intent at the start of the thread. I don't think if other games did not encourage collecting and the "Mount/fashion endgame" the monthly supporter packs would be an issue.

More than happy to keep the conversation going how ever you want, night shift is slow. This is interesting.

Noaani

Maezriel wrote: »

@Noaani you spent the better part of an entire day lecturing me on the definition of emotional manipulation. If I have to stop using that term as a synonym for emotional marketing then it's only fair that you stop thinking that your personal opinion on the cosmetics as the definition for whether or not the store practices FOMO.

The fact that the cosmetics are limited time makes it, by definition, FOMO.

I have no interest in buying a car so if I see an ad for a limited sale on a car it doesn't effect me in any way whatsoever...doesn't make it any less of a FOMO strategy.

As I said, I don't consider it FOMO because there is literally nothing to fear.

However, as I also said in that same post, if others wish to ignore that, fine.

I then carried on with my argument from the assumed perspective of agreeing that it is indeed FOMO.

This is it here.

Noaani wrote: »

If we then completely disregard all of the above reasons as to why I don't think what Intrepid are doing actually count as FOMO (specifically due to the word "fear" in that abbreviation), and if we just assume that it is, I disagree with most posters here as to the severity of it.

So, if you want to disregard any and all points as to whether what Intrepid are doing is in fact FOMO, cool, address the remainder of the points made.

Noaani

Maezriel wrote: »

There's not a single human on planet Earth capable of resisting the pull of marketing.

Well this is just untrue.

If there is a sale on chicken, and I was planning on buying chicken, cool. However, if I wasn't planning on buying chicken, I continue to not buy chicken. That sale will literally never persuade me to buy a product I wasn't in the market for.

Likewise with limited edition cosmetics. If a new cosmetic is released, I will decide within 10 seconds of seeing it whether I am going to buy it or not. I make that decision based purely on whether I like it or not, availability is never a factor in my decision - and I simply don't understand the thinking behind people that would let that affect their decision making.

Vhaeyne

Noaani wrote: »

Likewise with limited edition cosmetics. If a new cosmetic is released, I will decide within 10 seconds of seeing it whether I am going to buy it or not. I make that decision based purely on whether I like it or not, availability is never a factor in my decision - and I simply don't understand the thinking behind people that would let that affect their decision making.

I took one look at this thing:
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Fox_of_the_Pyre

And was like: "Ohh, hell no, I don't even want to see anyone on that awful thing"

The next month could not come fast enough for me when that thing was in the shop.

Shootersa

The way i see it, you either support the game and get some nice cosmetics or you don't and you don't get those shiny cosmetics.

All this thread is about how everyone wants everything because they feel like they should have the ability to get it because if it's not available forever then it's a FOMO tactic and they would be manipulating you into buying something now.

The real problem is that everyone who thinks its a FOMO tactic is entitled and wants everything for themselves. Like whenever something in the supermarket goes 1 + 1 Free you don't go the next week complaining that the promotional is over and you want the exact same thing right now do you?

All the shop is and what intrepid is doing is giving people the option to support the game early and receive nice items along side it. Are these items going to be available forever? Most likely not. Does that matter? Only to the people who obsessively collect or horde things, which in its own case is an issue.

Yea you missed out on some cool items but in the grand scheme of life and everything else does that really matter? No. You most likely play this game for a year or maybe even longer but in the end it adds nothing special to your game experience. All it screams is the need for things, no matter what it is. Or to say it in another way, you are being Materialistic, obsessing over things you want to get no mater what.

Child Item