Monthly Locked FOMO cosmetic offerings need to end.

As a Backer I get the reasoning behind not opening cosmetics to general public sales so the "exclusivity" remains intact.
However the KS campaign has served it's purpose. Since then there have been many adjustments to allowing ongoing player driven funding/support.

But its been over a year now of monthly arbitrary locked cosmetic offerings and I feel it's time to stop with the FOMO marketing.

The monthly live steam mounts/skins pitch is starting to piss in the punch bowl of positive vibes regarding the general perspective of the game.

I believe Intrepid are aware of the monthly meme worthy context and it's cumulative negative impact.

I think 2022 would be a good time to acknowledged this fact and open all NEW ongoing cosmetic offerings to general sale with no time gating.

All prior cosmetics/backer rewards can and should retain their exclusive status as not offend those backers/customers.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Vhaeyne

Marcet wrote: »

Too much cosmetics and mounts every month, way too much.

Its good though. It means we will see a very diverse amount of cosmetics when the game is live.

JustVine

mcstackerson wrote: »

I think the problem with that is these cosmetics can't be used atm so buying them first means nothing. These cosmetics currently have no value besides the exclusivity caused by their limited availability since you can't use them. If they weren't limited then there wouldn't be a point in buying them now.

Once the game comes out then yes, they shouldn't be exclusive, or at least all of them shouldn't, but now that is the only value they can give their supporters.

I can see what would lead you to that conclusion, but when you think about why exactly it has value to be exclusive, you might come to a different conclusion.

Essentially it is 'the promise of being special/unique'. But in my proposed compromise that is still what is being sold. 'You are promised to be special/unique for a certain important time period so you can get recognition for it.'

Marcet

Vhaeyne wrote: »

Marcet wrote: »

Too much cosmetics and mounts every month, way too much.

Its good though. It means we will see a very diverse amount of cosmetics when the game is live.

I understand that variety is good, but I just want the plain game at launch, I just want a simple first day of launch with a clean base game, then add cosmetics along the way if you want. Same with addons, let's start without anything and maybe 2 years later we can have whatever.

Vhaeyne

Marcet wrote: »

Vhaeyne wrote: »

Marcet wrote: »

Too much cosmetics and mounts every month, way too much.

Its good though. It means we will see a very diverse amount of cosmetics when the game is live.

I understand that variety is good, but I just want the plain game at launch, I just want a simple first day of launch with a clean base game, then add cosmetics along the way if you want. Same with addons, let's start without anything and maybe 2 years later we can have whatever.

A pipe dream. I understand the desire, but it's not going to happen. People are going to speed run to cap, and you are going to be seeing all of the cosmetics as soon as people can get them on.

Add-ons are a different matter. We will likely start to see DPS meters near the end of beta or just after launch. Intrepid really has no say in this matter unless we want to let them spy on our PCs to make sure we are not using them.

Happymeal2415

Can we stop saying Fomo as if it's actually a problem. The only people that seem to have a problem with this are the ones that want to collect every single one. That's not fomo that's hoarding.

Talents

Uncommon Sense wrote: »

But its been over a year now of monthly arbitrary locked cosmetic offerings and I feel it's time to stop with the FOMO marketing.

No one tell him its actually been 4 years.

Jahlon

I am actually amazed at the lack of any business sense from the majority of the posts I saw in this thread.

#1 - Most of the first 5 people who responded clearly didn't even read the original post. You just felt it necessary to be on the opposing side of the argument, even though you didn't even understand the suggestion.

#2 - The Original Poster demonstrated that while they may have understood a part of the issue, in their later subsequent posts, they do not fully understand FOMO, because it is neither anti-consumer, nor malicious, nor an online only business practice.

#3 - Supply and Demand have NOTHING to do with FOMO as a marketing technique. Yes, the inherent nature of low supply triggers a Pavlovian response when it comes to "you really want it and it won't be available" but this is not FOMO, this is the basic nature of supply = low then price = high.

Let's drop some Jahlon Knowledge on you.

FOMO means Fear of Missing Out. This is the reason why companies like McDonalds don't offer the Shamrock Shake and the McRib all year long. First, by limiting the availability, they increase the number they sell because "a limited time". This is also seen for years when the Girl Scouts only offered cookies once per year. (This particular FOMO has now changed).

What the OP is saying is that Intrepid needs to look at how FOMO is negatively affecting their Public Relations image. As cosmetics and discussion of such is done on a near daily basis, CLEARLY there is some need to address this issue.

The better solution, would actually be to keep the monthly cosmetics on a rotating basis (although possibly look at increasing the time between from one month to three months and do these on a quarterly basis). This would more accurately align with Vision and Mission statements from Intrepid that they can afford to absorb these elongated development windows and additional staff (original 100 to 150) increases.

What really needs to happen with a change in the business model, is that the six individual cosmetics need to not be locked behind a minimum $375 pay wall. Allow everyone regardless of backer level to purchase any of the six cosmetics.

A person with limited monthly disposable income, is more likely to invest $25 one time for one item (such as the Santa Suit) vs having any level of reasonable expectation that they will wait until they have 15 months of disposable income to purchase a $375 pack.

There is no down side to this. People who have founder's packs, continue to have all the additional goodies (sub time, alpha access, etc) so if you want those things, you pay for them.

If you only want one or two cosmetics as singletons, you get them and Intrepid gets your money.

George_Black

So, you were freaking out when they said "we need more Alpha testers, we will put out more keys" and you were going on about how they were not loyal to their backers.

Now you say they should make those cosmetics (which so far, non of them was anything spectacular for ppl to fomo.....) need to be more accessible, no longer exclusive, because it hurts their PR.

Their PR is doing great since Steven says everytime "dont contribute financially, give us feedback". There's no two-way about it. It's a fomo issue for some ppl like the OP, no matter how inteligent you want to present it (in order to show off your ego once more). People need to grow up and realize that some things arent worth their time and most importantly making demands from others, and let it go.
Those cosmetic discussions will not harm the development. People just dont know their place and they thing they can influence the direction the planet is spinning with their constant posting. Not true.

Now put your knowledge to the side and hear my advice. Humble your self a little bit, if you want to be a proper content creator.
And if you still feel so accomplished that you dont care to change your behaviour, still, humble your self a little bit.
Every time you pop up somewhere and I hear you speak (9 times out of 10 redirecting any subject to promote your brand) I feel embarrashed on your behalf about the way you place your self amongst the ppl you interract with. It's a weird feeling I swear, although short, because I immediately close down the window.
Humble your self a little bit and maybe the grandiose way you appear will give way to something more appealing.

JustVine

@Jahlon I agree with one part of your solution. The fact that people can't buy cosmetics individually without first buying a pack is flawed and probably hindering capital intake somewhat.

I don't know how much of that is rooted in not having the data structures or confidence in existing data structures to track those sorts of things long term.

I also don't know if they are actively discouraging it this way on a philosophical/strategic level since they might want to lower the overall cosmetic cost later in development and therefore might worry about the pr issues that might arise from less committed supporters complaining that they overpaid. I personally would find that risk acceptable relative to the increase in income and relative justifiedness they would have in ignoring that criticism. Buyers remorse is not a companies responsibility if they give you exactly what you were promised. But I am not their pr team nor is it my 40 mil on the line. Still, I would rather them gladly take people's money more freely than they currently do.

I disagree with your rotating content idea relative to the utility a constant new stream of content produces as described in one of my earlier posts. The downside is definitely the marketing team having less new art pieces to talk about during informational dry periods in their campaign and therefore having less tools for focusing hype during those times. If you didn't mean that they shouldn't be making new content and should just rotate existing content, my apologies but I am less certain what else you could have ment.

Gaul_

I think it's absolutely fine as it is -- however, it does carry some risk for Intrepid Studios.

If Ashes does not do well and launches in a poor state, then selling cosmetics during this development period will be seen as a massive scam. Intrepid Studios having an open development process does alleviate this issue quite a bit. No one who is paying attention can honestly argue that Ashes of Creation is vaporware. It may fail before launch, but it is clearly a good faith effort.

If Ashes does do well then selling these cosmetics will still be a gripe by players who can't get them anymore, but the overall success of the game will outweigh that issue enormously. If the game works as planned, then no one will care about this because the Ashes community will be at least 100x larger than it is now.

Cosmetics that become unobtainable are not a problem for successful games. WoW and League both have unobtainable cosmetics, and no one is presenting that as a major issue in the communities.

Either way, it's a business decision in order to monetize the game. People have proposed all sorts of changes. Lock them behind some in game achievement or stop these bundles altogether. They are wasting their time. They might as well be arguing for the game to not have a subscription. It's not going to change.

Personally, I would never have gotten a cosmetic pack if Intrepid Studios didn't have an open development process that I carefully reviewed before purchasing.

Noaani

Jahlon wrote: »

What really needs to happen with a change in the business model, is that the six individual cosmetics need to not be locked behind a minimum $375 pay wall.

I could agree with this, but offering cosmetics for a month is perfectly fine.

A small correction to your post though. McDonald's have the McRib as a buffer. If there is likely to be a shortage in beef, they are able to put the McRib on to soak up some of the demand for beef - as it doesn't use any. This is a function it can not serve if it were on the menu all the time.

They don't have it specifically as something to offer in a FOMO capacity, but some people do treat it as such, which leads some people to assume that is the reason it exists.

While there are indeed some products that some companies offer to try and maximize FOMO, the bulk of limited offer items are limited time for other reasons. In Ashes case, items are limited time so that players supporting the game now (when there is more risk - as the game is not released, may be delayed, may never release, may be shirt lived, or may not be to a backers taste). If there is a chance to get these same items later on, there is literally no reason to get them now, and there are actual, real reasons to get them later.

Intrepid offering items.s for a month is not an issue. People thinking they have a right to them all, however, is.

Vhaeyne

I love all you do for the community, but this has got to be the worst post I have ever seen from you.

#1 - Most of the first 5 people who responded clearly didn't even read the original post. You just felt it necessary to be on the opposing side of the argument, even though you didn't even understand the suggestion.

Just like OP you assumed myself and others did not read the first post. Which is false.

I later went on to fully explain that I don't think anything should be changed about the way Intrepid is doing things with the supporter packs. In doing so, OP's hatred for FOMO became even more explicit.

#2 - The Original Poster demonstrated that while they may have understood a part of the issue, in their later subsequent posts, they do not fully understand FOMO, because it is neither anti-consumer, nor malicious, nor an online only business practice.

Did you read OPs post? It clearly has a bias with hate for FOMO. He used words like "arbitrary locked" and put the word 'exclusivity' in quotes not to quote, but to show how he disagrees with the term as used.

The monthly live steam mounts/skins pitch is starting to piss in the punch bowl of positive vibes regarding the general perspective of the game.-OP

This to me sounds like he thinks what Intrepid is doing is malicious... Those are his words.

#3 - Supply and Demand have NOTHING to do with FOMO as a marketing technique. Yes, the inherent nature of low supply triggers a Pavlovian response when it comes to "you really want it and it won't be available" but this is not FOMO, this is the basic nature of supply = low then price = high.

Yes, but the supply will be low in the future. That is the point. These cosmetics will be more valuable to the people that have them because they know they are among the few that even have a supply of them. That is the point.

Jahlon wrote: »

What the OP is saying is that Intrepid needs to look at how FOMO is negatively affecting their Public Relations image. As cosmetics and discussion of such is done on a near daily basis, CLEARLY there is some need to address this issue.

The better solution, would actually be to keep the monthly cosmetics on a rotating basis (although possibly look at increasing the time between from one month to three months and do these on a quarterly basis). This would more accurately align with Vision and Mission statements from Intrepid that they can afford to absorb these elongated development windows and additional staff (original 100 to 150) increases.

What really needs to happen with a change in the business model, is that the six individual cosmetics need to not be locked behind a minimum $375 pay wall. Allow everyone regardless of backer level to purchase any of the six cosmetics.

A person with limited monthly disposable income, is more likely to invest $25 one time for one item (such as the Santa Suit) vs having any level of reasonable expectation that they will wait until they have 15 months of disposable income to purchase a $375 pack.

There is no down side to this. People who have founder's packs, continue to have all the additional goodies (sub time, alpha access, etc) so if you want those things, you pay for them.

If you only want one or two cosmetics as singletons, you get them and Intrepid gets your money.

The only thing I agree with about your suggestion is the removal of the $375 pay wall. Otherwise, expanding the time you have to buy parts of a pack or rotating them would devalue the packs. If I know people have three months to buy a pack or that people can just wait for them to go on sale again, then I am not buying anything from a pack like that.

It would be like if Rolex came out with a 300$ mass market watch. It would destroy the brand overnight. Rolex has been putting out fewer watches on purpose to increase the value of their watches, and that has worked. These cosmetics are the same concept. Knowing that they are limited makes them special and makes people want to buy them. Any changes to that is bad for them.

Making the sales more open is not going to just generate good will. It is just going to make people not want them as much.

Kovrm

I think what they're currently doing is just fine.

I missed a pack that I wanted bad way back because I couldn't afford it. My buddy actually got it, tho. So, I saved and set aside some money so that when another pack I liked came out I could purchase it. And I did just that. It's really not hard for someone to save the money... and if it is, then you prolly shouldn't be throwing money at the pack to begin with. Shit, it's not like it's a mystery when they'll retire a pack and release a new one.

The idea of someone actually catching FOMO over game cosmetics is laughable. /lol

I think they could do better, though, and only release 1 pack a month and have it available for only 1 week out of said month. Keep the prices the same.

Jahlon

For clarification "rotating" in my post means swapping out every 30 days as it is now, or 90 days, if they move to quarterly.

Vhaeyne

Jahlon wrote: »

For clarification "rotating" in my post means swapping out every 30 days as it is now, or 90 days, if they move to quarterly.

As long as "rotating" does not mean the packs rotate back into being sold again, no pitchforks need to come out.

Jahlon

Vhaeyne wrote: »

Jahlon wrote: »

For clarification "rotating" in my post means swapping out every 30 days as it is now, or 90 days, if they move to quarterly.

As long as "rotating" does not mean the packs rotate back into being sold again, no pitchforks need to come out.

The exclusivity thing they do is fine. The FOMO exclusivity thing they do locked behind a 375 pay wall is not so fine.

CROW3

Jahlon wrote: »

Supply and Demand have NOTHING to do with FOMO as a marketing technique.

3 lines later…

Jahlon wrote: »

FOMO means Fear of Missing Out. This is the reason why companies like McDonalds don't offer the Shamrock Shake and the McRib all year long. First, by limiting the availability, they increase the number they sell because "a limited time". This is also seen for years when the Girl Scouts only offered cookies once per year. (This particular FOMO has now changed).

@Jahlon - from everything I’ve seen we tend to see things pretty much eye to eye. I just wanted to point out that this still seems to be the case, given you explain your assertion that FOMO has nothing to do with supply and demand by showing exactly how it relates to supply and demand. 🤗

Merry Christmas (if you celebrate), keep up the good content (been following you for years).

Conrad

I seriously can't believe how ppl here are defending FOMO. That is just next level sad

Vhaeyne

Conrad wrote: »

I seriously can't believe how ppl here are defending FOMO. That is just next level sad

Please explain how it is sad. Then explain how it is sad on some kind of "next level" of sad.

Noaani

Conrad wrote: »

I seriously can't believe how ppl here are defending FOMO. That is just next level sad

I'm not defending FOMO, yet I am defending Intrepid.

In this case, FOMO is an issue in consumers, not a marketing technique Intrepid are abusing.

Intrepid limit the sale of cosmetics to one month for a very good reason, people that "suffer" from FOMO in relation to this are the ones with the issue. These are the people I am not defending, and are the people that need to fix their issue.

Child Item