mcstackerson wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Right but you could just, stop making new things exclusive and keep exclusivity for old stuff.... Then it loses all value and there is no reason to continue. Since you can't use the items, if it's not exclusive, then there is no reason to buy it. You would wait until you can play the game to buy what you want to play with. Would you rather have the monthly option or no option at all?
JustVine wrote: » Right but you could just, stop making new things exclusive and keep exclusivity for old stuff....
Caeryl wrote: » Bolded the relevant parts because you are so close to getting it.
The whole point is that FOMO tactics are chosen by the merchant selling a digital item, thus making it their responsibility – it’s not an assumption when Steven clearly said the purpose of the limited availability is to make them more appealing products. And people don’t like FOMO tactics because they are, by design, manipulative. I don’t think in this case it’s malicious, but the same way accidentally bumping into someone doesn’t negate the bruises just because it was an accident, FOMO is still manipulative to some extent regardless of intent. Since we are the customers, we’re well within our boundaries to express displeasure or frustration at those tactics.
CROW3 wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Bolded the relevant parts because you are so close to getting it. It’s kind of funny you say that, since I had a similar response to the rest of your post below. I wonder in this case whether we are just have different frames of reference on the same coin. We’ll see… The whole point is that FOMO tactics are chosen by the merchant selling a digital item, thus making it their responsibility – it’s not an assumption when Steven clearly said the purpose of the limited availability is to make them more appealing products. And people don’t like FOMO tactics because they are, by design, manipulative. I don’t think in this case it’s malicious, but the same way accidentally bumping into someone doesn’t negate the bruises just because it was an accident, FOMO is still manipulative to some extent regardless of intent. Since we are the customers, we’re well within our boundaries to express displeasure or frustration at those tactics. Who’s desire leads to demand in the equation Who’s fear is it in FOMO? Who’s responsibility is it for managing and owning that fear? Let’s downshift… A baker can only sell you a donut because you want a donut. A baker tells you this is the last donut (even if there are more) and you are willing to pay double, it’s still your desire that cost you 2$x. A baker tells you that the super donut is only available today. It’s your choice to desire the super donut so much that you agree to the purchasing terms to the super donut. The merchant is responsible for delivering goods based on the stated terms of a sale. But it’s customer desire - I.e. demand - that adjusts those terms. You aren’t a victim of ‘tactics’ by agreeing to those terms, and that frame of reference ignores the entire responsibility the customer has to manage their own desires. That’s why your analogy of being bumped into is somewhat stilted. If someone DID bump into you, it may be less about their action and more about how hard you pulled them towards you. You want Steven’s donut, but take no ownership of that want, only demand it’s his fault for not giving you what you want on your terms. Which also totally explains why you might feel manipulated…
Sylvanar wrote: » Hasn't this topic reached its conclusion couple of replies back with the screenshots of those Steven's quotes? FOMO is a sign of immaturity in a kid and weak mental disposition if its an adult. You can say I am wrong but it is what it is. Intrepid is selling something with terms CLEARLY stated. Someone's inability to comprehend it is not their fault. They told no lies, didn't ask anyone for money and still consider communities input. What more can people ask for?
Caeryl wrote: » And people don’t like FOMO tactics because they are, by design, manipulative.
Sylvanar wrote: » He doesn't care about OPs money or any monetary profit being talked about here.
Shoelid wrote: » fuck what Steven thinks, do what's best for the game.
JustVine wrote: » For reference when you read my other posts @CROW3 (to help save you time) I agree with everything you say here. And I also agree that exclusivity is a valid thing to want in a payment model. I just disagree with it as a choice for Ashes post launch for reasons outlined in my last response to you.
Noaani wrote: » Shoelid wrote: » fuck what Steven thinks, do what's best for the game. I agree with this sentiment, but I am unsure opening up the cosmetic shop would have a net positive effect. The first thing to keep in mind is that all previous cosmetics simply can not be put up for sale again. The amount of reputation damage that would do to Intrepid would mean that the game may as well never release. So, whats left for Intrepid to make profit on? New cosmetics going forward? They are already making money on new cosmetics, the question is whether or not they would make more money on any new cosmetics by not having them be monthly exclusives. To me, if Intrepid were to not put a time limit on items, I see no reason at all to buy anything right now. I would keep the money in the bank and buy something when the game releases. Since there is no reason to not do this, I would have to assume most people would do the same.
Sure, there will be some people that just want to support the game and so would buy things - but there is nothing stopping them from doing that now anyway.
The only people that gain in this scenario are the people that come to the game after the release of a new cosmetic that they want, and see that they can indeed buy it if they want. However, such people are still in the same position where the best thing for them to do is to wait until the game is released. As such, the only way Intrepid take in money from someone that they wouldn't have taken in otherwise is if someone comes to the game after Intrepid drop the exclusivity on items, sees an item from a previous month that they like, decide they want to support Intrepid now, but would have only provided that support to Intrepid if they got the item they wanted (what the hell kind of support is that?). The number of people that this would apply to simply does not match the number of people that would see there is no point in buying a cosmetic until the game is released. So, from my view, Intrepid dropping the exclusive element of the current cash shop would see a drastic decline in the revenue from said cash shop. So, if we go back to doing what is best for the game (fuck what Steven thinks, and all that), then surely what is being done now is exactly that.
Shoelid wrote: » I agree, if the 'FOMO' aspect is removed, I expect the immediate sales numbers to go down. The real question is about sale numbers in the future. I think people dislike "Fear of Missing Out" marketing for three reasons: #1: Fear. Fear isn't a pleasant feeling, much less spending money based on fear. #2: Missing Out. "Missing Out" on a future event, specifically. The fact of the matter is that nobody knows for sure how Ashes will end up on release, so many feel that marketing on an uncertain future is immoral. This is why Steven always says some variation of "don't spend money on us, just wait". He's trying to assuage fears about the future. #3: Marketing. FOMO is stupid effective, and some people just don't like the feeling of being marketed to. Removing (or reducing) FOMO could land Intrepid in a lot of people's good graces thereby increasing their customer base (but probably not by much). The flip side of that is it removes a really strong method of marketing. I don't expect removing the FOMO stuff to be monetarily effective like OP thinks. There actually is something stopping them from doing that: the massive initial pay-wall. Go look at the Ashes store while not logged in; the smallest purchase one can make is $75 dollars. This is far beyond a simple "donation to help Intrepid". I think this paywall needs to go. So you're saying that without the pressure from the monthly purchase window, less purchases will be made because the benefit from FOMO outweighs the benefit from increasing the customer base? Just rewording things as I understand it so you can correct me if I misunderstood. That could definitely be the case. Its impossible to really know without hard numbers. The way I see it, if Intrepid #1) removes the $75 beta access paywall and #2) extends the FOMO purchase deadline for all new cosmetics to pre-launch sometime (say, before beta 1), they will massively increase the revenue from their cosmetics (in the long run, and just not from invested people like you or me). #1 should increase the customer base simply by allowing smaller donation amounts, at cost of allowing some donors who aren't as invested and may be upset down the line. #2 will increase the amount of things for the increased customer base to buy, at cost of a big reduction in the cosmetic's exclusivity value. I think there's also a factor of bulk purchases vs monthly purchases. I think people are much more likely to spend $115 monthly over a year than they are to spend $1380. This is a point in favor of monthly FOMO. Basically: is it better to have many more customers buying small amounts, or fewer (but more invested) customers buying large amounts? I can see both TBH. Imagine all the Asmongold viewers checking out the game after a cool tech demo, wanting to pick up the mount from this month, and buying an item or two from previous months while they're at it because "why not".
Shoelid wrote: » #3: Marketing. FOMO is stupid effective, and some people just don't like the feeling of being marketed to.
JustVine wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Right but you could just, stop making new things exclusive and keep exclusivity for old stuff.... Then it loses all value and there is no reason to continue. Since you can't use the items, if it's not exclusive, then there is no reason to buy it. You would wait until you can play the game to buy what you want to play with. Would you rather have the monthly option or no option at all? It still has value... You still get to use it in game on release...They will not lose all buyer interest if anything the opposite. If my choices are really 'this model that will inevitably lead to a bad cash shop model post launch' and 'none at all but a good cash shop model later' I choose the latter. While they could change to a better model post launch, I doubt it because it's a cultural stance not an economic one as Steven admits himself. So I would expect him to stick to that model. However if the shop closed till launch there is a very small chance it would be a way to distance themselves from the current purchasing model post release to avoid whatever backlash they may recieve from changing it now. Save the cool cash shop cosmetics for launch. Heck keep the shop open and just sell embers instead of costumes. There are plenty of reasonable approaches to this that could be implemented with minimal outcry that are much more consumer friendly.
mcstackerson wrote: » So you will argue for changing it now or removing it but won't argue to change it at launch because you think that will never happen? Changing it at launch makes the most since to me since players can use what they are buying.
Why would players buy embers now for a game that isn't launch and more importantly, how does that look better? That looks worse. At least with cosmetics you have an idea of what you are helping them build for the world.
Hailee wrote: » That way you'll get an answer direct from Steven and it'll be on record.
CROW3 wrote: » Hailee wrote: » That way you'll get an answer direct from Steven and it'll be on record. I’m pretty sure Steven has already said this many times in different interviews & settings. Not sure if there was a court stenographer in the room, but we can sidebar if a mistrial needs to be considered. 🤪
