Gambling Kills Loyalty: Why Subs Should be Able to Buy "Pack" Contents Outright

[Capella]

I wish they would just lost all packs in the CM directly and just leave them there. Not rotate them out but keep adding the new ones along with the previous ones. People may buy more packs since they can now try to get the item from the pack it can from instead of saving 30 mil for it on the GTN.

 

May help lower GTN prices since more packs and the items from those packs could be added. Higher supply on the GTN the lower the price. That way for those that don't care about packs can more easily buy the item from the GTN.

 

I like this idea. I really want items from the Stronghold packs which are gone now...haven't seen some of the decos on GTN for awhile. It would be nice if they were still around to buy in addition to the current pack series. If they don't want to clutter things by having every pack available, why not have the featured pack/series like they do now, and then a "legacy" pack where they have 1 pack from the past every week, temporarily available.

[Rolodome]

Someone butthurt over not getting what they want via RNG ( and it's been this way since the packs were introduced yet now he decides to get annoyed? Nothing was "changed up on him" either ) isn't really grounds for removing packs.

 

They serve their purpose well and more than likely the only thing keeping this game afloat right now or at the least giving promise of future development.

 

Not once have I suggested removing packs.

[Hebruixe]

I'm pretty sure their attitude is, "Addicts are the most loyal customers."

[kieler]

im in for this make em high priced and its cheaper then gambling for em its sad like it is now with the top stuff goin for 50mill +

[thebumpkin]

This is why i dont buy packs, you get trash out of them for the most part. Complete lottery. Id rather just wait for them to appear on gtn.

[Colascione]

This is why i dont buy packs, you get trash out of them for the most part. Complete lottery. Id rather just wait for them to appear on gtn.

 

 

 

Issue with that is (and is also a perfect example of what OP means) is those items get wayyyy over inflated in price, like the new lightsaber which sells for no less than 70 mill on the GTN and likely wont ever price drop.

[Rolodome]

Issue with that is (and is also a perfect example of what OP means) is those items get wayyyy over inflated in price, like the new lightsaber which sells for no less than 70 mill on the GTN and likely wont ever price drop.

Good point.

 

The "wait for it to go on gtn" argument assumes that it will be within the cost reach of the person waiting for it to happen, but this is not always the case. Though there are those walking around with hundreds of millions of credits who can afford 70 mill without breaking their stride, it's likely that most can't.

 

And because the pricing is at the mercy of those who manage to get the item and put it up for sale (or sometimes at the mercy of those who watch the market, buy up all for cheap, and then resell for huge prices - people who may never have bought a pack in the first place), we're talking a kind of player-market that can actually be worse than the gambling itself. In part because the flagship "spend money" currency of the game can't even be translated into creds directly, so it's not as you can expediently throw RL money at the problem if you want to get the stuff off the gtn.

 

It's probably better you can't because direct RL money to in-game currency setups can encourage even worse practices, but the point is, that's how it is. At best, if you want to throw money at the problem, you're looking at 2 days, not including the time it takes you to sell the cartel items you bought and pray that what you bought to sell will actually sell at the price you want it to.

 

Meanwhile, supply might dry up, the price might go up even more, etc.

 

It's not at all a system that is good for those who actually just want the stupid items in the first place. (But as a reminder, in case somebody enters the thread and only reads this post: My point has always been more about the attitude behind it, not just this system.)

[thebumpkin]

Issue with that is (and is also a perfect example of what OP means) is those items get wayyyy over inflated in price, like the new lightsaber which sells for no less than 70 mill on the GTN and likely wont ever price drop.

 

It depends how badly you cant do without it.

 

Gtn is no difcerent to packs. Vote with your wallet. If people stop paying the insane prices.... the sellers will undercut each other more and more and it gets cheaper. If the sellers dont drop the price... then its a game, who will break first.

 

All that is required is patience. "Buy it nao" hepls nobody.

Edited June 12, 2016 by thebumpkin

[Rolodome]

It depends how badly you cant do without it.

 

Gtn is no difcerent to packs. Vote with your wallet. If people stop paying the insane prices.... the sellers will undercut each other more and more and it gets cheaper. If the sellers dont drop the price... then its a game, who will break first.

 

All that is required is patience. "Buy it nao" hepls nobody.

I've seen this kind of reasoning a lot over the years. It's always been weird to me, but I think I'm seeing now where it's coming from.

 

Perhaps it is superimposing beliefs about group culture onto a culture where those beliefs don't really work. In the US, people are more likely to act as individuals, in a way that is chaotic and discordant (more so than some other cultures, where group behavior is more important).

 

But the belief that doing something like "voting with your wallet" will yield the desired result assumes that agreed upon group behavior will naturally occur. Without such natural accordance between the majority of people, the act of voting with your wallet (1 person in a sea of thousands or millions) is all but meaningless and yields no assured results at all, other than removing 1 person from the pool.

 

In other words, in some cultures, the advice "vote with your wallet" might be very effective, if it sticks. But getting it to stick to a culture that is highly individualistic in nature is all but a pipe dream. I mean, Americans tend to need petitions and gatherings just to find ourselves in agreement on a large scale.

 

This also raises the question: Are games taking subtle differences in culture into account when they set up their markets? But that's a topic for another time and place.

[Ratajack]

I've seen this kind of reasoning a lot over the years. It's always been weird to me, but I think I'm seeing now where it's coming from.

 

Perhaps it is superimposing beliefs about group culture onto a culture where those beliefs don't really work. In the US, people are more likely to act as individuals, in a way that is chaotic and discordant (more so than some other cultures, where group behavior is more important).

 

But the belief that doing something like "voting with your wallet" will yield the desired result assumes that agreed upon group behavior will naturally occur. Without such natural accordance between the majority of people, the act of voting with your wallet (1 person in a sea of thousands or millions) is all but meaningless and yields no assured results at all, other than removing 1 person from the pool.

 

In other words, in some cultures, the advice "vote with your wallet" might be very effective, if it sticks. But getting it to stick to a culture that is highly individualistic in nature is all but a pipe dream. I mean, Americans tend to need petitions and gatherings just to find ourselves in agreement on a large scale.

 

This also raises the question: Are games taking subtle differences in culture into account when they set up their markets? But that's a topic for another time and place.

 

Your claims of "individuals" fall short not due to the "individuals" per se but rather that fact that the "entitled, instant gratification, give it to me NOW and for as little cost and effort as possible" crowd, apparently are the MINORITY. You are correct when you say that the minority (paraphrasing you here) can vote with their wallets, but if the majority do not agree with the minority and continue to purchase a given item, then the majority "wins".

 

What some may see as "too expensive" or "too difficult to obtain because it requires a modicum of effort to earn the credits to purchase it via the GTN", others see as very reasonable in cost or effort.

 

It is not a problem with the CM, or BW. It is a problem with the "entitled, instant gratification, give it to me NOW and for as little cost and effort as possible" crowd, IMO.

 

No one is entitled to have every shiny they want (even in a video game) if they are not willing to do what is necessary to obtain that shiny by legitimate means.

[Ratajack]

Good point.

 

The "wait for it to go on gtn" argument assumes that it will be within the cost reach of the person waiting for it to happen, but this is not always the case. Though there are those walking around with hundreds of millions of credits who can afford 70 mill without breaking their stride, it's likely that most can't.

 

And because the pricing is at the mercy of those who manage to get the item and put it up for sale (or sometimes at the mercy of those who watch the market, buy up all for cheap, and then resell for huge prices - people who may never have bought a pack in the first place), we're talking a kind of player-market that can actually be worse than the gambling itself. In part because the flagship "spend money" currency of the game can't even be translated into creds directly, so it's not as you can expediently throw RL money at the problem if you want to get the stuff off the gtn.

 

It's probably better you can't because direct RL money to in-game currency setups can encourage even worse practices, but the point is, that's how it is. At best, if you want to throw money at the problem, you're looking at 2 days, not including the time it takes you to sell the cartel items you bought and pray that what you bought to sell will actually sell at the price you want it to.

 

Meanwhile, supply might dry up, the price might go up even more, etc.

 

It's not at all a system that is good for those who actually just want the stupid items in the first place. (But as a reminder, in case somebody enters the thread and only reads this post: My point has always been more about the attitude behind it, not just this system.)

 

To what attitude do you refer?

 

IMO, this all boils down to the "entitled, instant gratification, give it to me NOW and for as little cost and effort as possible" attitude displayed by many in this thread.

 

My suggestion to them is to grow up and realize that NO ONE is entitled to every shiny they see and want, (even in a video game) unless they are willing to do what it takes to obtain that shiny by legitimate means.

[Colascione]

Your claims of "individuals" fall short not due to the "individuals" per se but rather that fact that the "entitled, instant gratification, give it to me NOW and for as little cost and effort as possible" crowd, apparently are the MINORITY. You are correct when you say that the minority (paraphrasing you here) can vote with their wallets, but if the majority do not agree with the minority and continue to purchase a given item, then the majority "wins".

 

What some may see as "too expensive" or "too difficult to obtain because it requires a modicum of effort to earn the credits to purchase it via the GTN", others see as very reasonable in cost or effort.

 

It is not a problem with the CM, or BW. It is a problem with the "entitled, instant gratification, give it to me NOW and for as little cost and effort as possible" crowd, IMO.

 

No one is entitled to have every shiny they want (even in a video game) if they are not willing to do what is necessary to obtain that shiny by legitimate means.

 

If you're implying that 70-80 mill (for one item which shouldn't be at most more than like 10 mill) is chump change or something similar then you need a reality check

[Rolodome]

To what attitude do you refer?

 

IMO, this all boils down to the "entitled, instant gratification, give it to me NOW and for as little cost and effort as possible" attitude displayed by many in this thread.

 

My suggestion to them is to grow up and realize that NO ONE is entitled to every shiny they see and want, (even in a video game) unless they are willing to do what it takes to obtain that shiny by legitimate means.

You can see what attitude I'm referring to if you read the OP. I suppose I can summarize for you because you'll probably think that I'm dodging the point if I don't spell it out in this post.

 

It is (roughly) about buyers feeling respected and long-term loyalty. That is, in a very rough nutshell, the whole deal I'm talking about here. The rest is specifics to demonstrate the point.

 

Entitlement and instant gratification may be a motivator in some of those who talk about the specifics that myself and others are using as examples, but ultimately, my goal here has never been anything to do with either of those concepts. Gambling systems are notorious for leaving people with a sense of being robbed. Is it because people are entitled and want things instantly? I suppose you could try to clam it is, but the more obvious explanation is that it's because gambling systems are always slanted in favor of the person/entity running the system.

 

Anything else you'd like me to extrapolate on?

[Ratajack]

If you're implying that 70-80 mill (for one item which shouldn't be at most more than like 10 mill) is chump change or something similar then you need a reality check

 

I never said that 70-80 million is chump change, but credits are easy to obtain in this game, even if it might take Johnny longer to obtain that 70-80 million than he would like.

 

An item is worth whatever people are willing to pay for that item. If people are willing to pay 70-80 million for "shiny A", then "shiny A" is worth 70-80 million. It does not matter that Johnny thinks "shiny A" should not cost more than 10 million. "Shiny A" may cost more than Johnny wants to spend, but if people are willing to pay 70-80 million for it, then it IS worth 70-80 million.

 

If Johnny wants "shiny A" then he will just have to spend the time to earn that "more than chump change" 70-80 million. It will take time for Johnny to do so, and Johnny will not be able to have that "shiny A" right now, but if he is willing to put forth the required effort, he can have that shiny.

[Coloneli]

Just wanted to come in here and thank all the gamblers for keeping game alive!

[Ratajack]

You can see what attitude I'm referring to if you read the OP. I suppose I can summarize for you because you'll probably think that I'm dodging the point if I don't spell it out in this post.

 

It is (roughly) about buyers feeling respected and long-term loyalty. That is, in a very rough nutshell, the whole deal I'm talking about here. The rest is specifics to demonstrate the point.

 

Entitlement and instant gratification may be a motivator in some of those who talk about the specifics that myself and others are using as examples, but ultimately, my goal here has never been anything to do with either of those concepts. Gambling systems are notorious for leaving people with a sense of being robbed. Is it because people are entitled and want things instantly? I suppose you could try to clam it is, but the more obvious explanation is that it's because gambling systems are always slanted in favor of the person/entity running the system.

 

Anything else you'd like me to extrapolate on?

 

Your OP and other posts in this thread and other threads seem to carry a common theme. That theme is all about "entitlement and instant gratification".

 

You "suggest" that players (you) be able to "opt out" of the packs and purchase the items you want directly, without having to purchase packs, or use the GTN.

 

You release a box called "Dark Crate." Dark Crate has a chance to drop several exclusive items. The item that you know players will want most is the rarest of the drops. An opt-out option would mean subscribers can buy the contents of Dark Crate individually, for a flat currency cost.

 

You "suggest" that BW essentially hand items out for FREE by giving customers the "cost" of items when a new pack comes out.

 

For example, when Dark Crate comes out, Subscribers are given complimentary currency equal to the value of the lowest cost item in the set, with a Mail notifying them of the new items and the new currency.

 

Now, it might be the cost of the lower items, but that still makes the lower items essentially FREE, and with enough "alts" getting that "complimentary currency", players (you) might even be able to get that "super duper, oh so awesome new shiny" for FREE.

 

 

You "suggest" that BW lower the collections unlock cost for players (you).

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=885391

 

 

 

Your posts carry the common theme of "give it to me now, give it to me for less and give it to me for as little effort as possible".

 

The list goes on and on.

[Rolodome]

Your OP and other posts in this thread and other threads seem to carry a common theme. That theme is all about "entitlement and instant gratification".

 

You "suggest" that players (you) be able to "opt out" of the packs and purchase the items you want directly, without having to purchase packs, or use the GTN.

 

 

 

You "suggest" that BW essentially hand items out for FREE by giving customers the "cost" of items when a new pack comes out.

 

 

 

Now, it might be the cost of the lower items, but that still makes the lower items essentially FREE, and with enough "alts" getting that "complimentary currency", players (you) might even be able to get that "super duper, oh so awesome new shiny" for FREE.

 

 

You "suggest" that BW lower the collections unlock cost for players (you).

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=885391

 

 

 

Your posts carry the common theme of "give it to me now, give it to me for less and give it to me for as little effort as possible".

 

The list goes on and on.

I have explained where I'm coming from numerous times now, including in the off-topic thread that you linked, and my explanation wasn't "I want it now."

 

If you can't address what I'm saying without making it into a personal attack, then please don't post further in the thread.

[thebumpkin]

I've seen this kind of reasoning a lot over the years. It's always been weird to me, but I think I'm seeing now where it's coming from.

 

Perhaps it is superimposing beliefs about group culture onto a culture where those beliefs don't really work. In the US, people are more likely to act as individuals, in a way that is chaotic and discordant (more so than some other cultures, where group behavior is more important).

 

But the belief that doing something like "voting with your wallet" will yield the desired result assumes that agreed upon group behavior will naturally occur. Without such natural accordance between the majority of people, the act of voting with your wallet (1 person in a sea of thousands or millions) is all but meaningless and yields no assured results at all, other than removing 1 person from the pool.

 

In other words, in some cultures, the advice "vote with your wallet" might be very effective, if it sticks. But getting it to stick to a culture that is highly individualistic in nature is all but a pipe dream. I mean, Americans tend to need petitions and gatherings just to find ourselves in agreement on a large scale.

 

This also raises the question: Are games taking subtle differences in culture into account when they set up their markets? But that's a topic for another time and place.

 

This has nothing to do with beliefs or cultures or multitudes ceasing to act as individuals. Its about our own acceptance of facts.

 

I would love to own a brand new Bentley for example, but I accept that is very unlikely to happen due to a number of factors. I merely take the same stance in game as in real life, I accept there are things in game I may not be able to have. Naturally, games and real life are very different, I get that. But whether in real life, or in the world of videogames, there are people who have champagne tastes, but only lemonade money. I understand the frustration.

 

Some people can produce the millions and millions of credits easily, others cannot. I suppose I am fortunate in as much as I can produce millions and millions easily through various ways, takes me a few weeks but I can do it. Though I am exceedingly fortunate in so much as most of the stuff on the GTN selling for ridiculous money, I think is tat, and don't want it anyway.

 

Like I say its perspective, and patience. Also packs are not good value for coins in my opinion so I don't pay it. If others awoke to the simple truth of that you can refuse to buy in the GTN and CM then sellers are forced to adjust to attract customers again. For the GTN if it doesn't sell, they either hold onto it and relist again, or they drop prices.

Edited June 13, 2016 by thebumpkin

[Xina_LA]

I completely agree that there should be less random ways to buy a wider variety of items from the Market.

 

The people who like the lottery feel of packs can have their thing, while the people who want to pay a fair price for a specific item can also have their thing.

 

Sure, not everything should be available separately on the market, but it has been a very (VERY) long time since the selection of available items has changed in certain categories (IE: decorations). It's time for these categories to get some love!

[Rolodome]

This has nothing to do with beliefs or cultures or multitudes ceasing to act as individuals. Its about our own acceptance of facts.

 

I would love to own a brand new Bentley for example, but I accept that is very unlikely to happen due to a number of factors. I merely take the same stance in game as in real life, I accept there are things in game I may not be able to have. Naturally, games and real life are very different, I get that. But whether in real life, or in the world of videogames, there are people who have champagne tastes, but only lemonade money. I understand the frustration.

 

Some people can produce the millions and millions of credits easily, others cannot. I suppose I am fortunate in as much as I can produce millions and millions easily through various ways, takes me a few weeks but I can do it. Though I am exceedingly fortunate in so much as most of the stuff on the GTN selling for ridiculous money, I think is tat, and don't want it anyway.

 

Like I say its perspective, and patience. Also packs are not good value for coins in my opinion so I don't pay it. If others awoke to the simple truth of that you can refuse to buy in the GTN and CM then sellers are forced to adjust to attract customers again. For the GTN if it doesn't sell, they either hold onto it and relist again, or they drop prices.

I appreciate your sympathy, though in my case, I don't struggle all that much with making credits. I feel I'm at a pretty good pace myself, all things considered.

 

What I'm referring to when I talk about belief about groups is that it's unlikely people will "awake to the simple truth" that you are talking about, due to the nature of (mostly American) culture and it being so individual-centric.

 

In other words, you can share an idea, even describe the merits of it, but the odds of it being adopted as common practice for thousands or millions of individuals is highly unlikely.

 

That said, I'm not sure I'm being fair to point it all at culture. Part of it is likely just that people tend to be slow to change, in general. Even more group-centric cultures, as far as I know, don't tend to change on a dime.

 

So I am aware of the facts, don't me wrong on that. But the facts seem to include the knowledge that people will likely never "wake up" in the way that you describe, so while perspective and acceptance might be good advice, "voting with your wallet" really only works as a sort of protection against wasting your own money. It's not going to force a seller to change without tons of people doing it together.

[Ratajack]

I appreciate your sympathy, though in my case, I don't struggle all that much with making credits. I feel I'm at a pretty good pace myself, all things considered.

 

What I'm referring to when I talk about belief about groups is that it's unlikely people will "awake to the simple truth" that you are talking about, due to the nature of (mostly American) culture and it being so individual-centric.

 

In other words, you can share an idea, even describe the merits of it, but the odds of it being adopted as common practice for thousands or millions of individuals is highly unlikely.

 

That said, I'm not sure I'm being fair to point it all at culture. Part of it is likely just that people tend to be slow to change, in general. Even more group-centric cultures, as far as I know, don't tend to change on a dime.

 

So I am aware of the facts, don't me wrong on that. But the facts seem to include the knowledge that people will likely never "wake up" in the way that you describe, so while perspective and acceptance might be good advice, "voting with your wallet" really only works as a sort of protection against wasting your own money. It's not going to force a seller to change without tons of people doing it together.

 

Why do Ferrari or Bentley need to "change"?

 

Why does BW need to "change"? Because some players feel entitled to have every new shiny LUXURY without having to do what is necessary to obtain that item legitimately? That is not a compelling reason, IMO.

[Rolodome]

Why do Ferrari or Bentley need to "change"?

 

Why does BW need to "change"? Because some players feel entitled to have every new shiny LUXURY without having to do what is necessary to obtain that item legitimately? That is not a compelling reason, IMO.

No, the "compelling reason" is: A model that is more likely to hang onto customers through thick and thin, rather than hang onto them only through A) fan loyalty, B) "please don't leave me" content/gift offerings, or C) "if you leave, it'll be hell for you" (aka: the "F2P gameplay is a living nightmare" model).

 

It's not a new idea I'm presenting here. Just classic salesmanship in the context of the online game market, i.e. fostering a human relationship with the customer. Or, on a large scale, at least fostering the same feelings.

 

Most of the models I've encountered are ruled by a sort of anxious fear. "The competition is fierce and we have to cling to every dime and nickel we can get." Never mind that the more human approach to salesmanship has been proven to work ten times over and it doesn't leave people feeling like they've been cheated. Quite the opposite.

 

Do they "need" to change? I don't know. I'm not looking at their profit margins and I don't really care what those numbers are. It's obvious to me, from my own observations, that even the most profitable of games like these (in pure math) often hemorrhage players like mad and have a high turnover rate (lots leaving, lots of new people coming in). Some of this, of course, is just people changing interests, but it's obvious that part of it is the models themselves.

 

Games like these have always faced the problem of people getting "bored" from "lack of new content" and some of them have worked themselves into this weird frenzy, where they take on crazy development cycles to try to keep people happy. All the while forgetting that while boredom is one reason people might abandon ship, they aren't as likely to leave if they feel valued.

 

Ultimately, what people want is a feeling. This is true for most entertainment and just products in general. Advertisers have learned how to exploit this, but it seems they haven't all learned the lesson that most people aren't that stupid on the whole and most of them will sooner or later realize they're being exploited, if that is what is happening. They will then act accordingly, if they have any amount of healthy self-esteem; they will drop the product like dirt on their shoe if it stops living up to its purported transactional value.

 

I don't know why you are still talking about entitlement. As I've stated multiple times, that is not what I'm talking about. No one is entitled to anything, but even the simple act of having that in your head can be a problem right out of the gate because it puts buyer and seller at odds with each other, drawing lines in the sand, saying that no humanity is allowed to enter the equation. If this post does not make it clear that this isn't about entitlement, then I don't know what to tell you.

[Ratajack]

No, the "compelling reason" is: A model that is more likely to hang onto customers through thick and thin, rather than hang onto them only through A) fan loyalty, B) "please don't leave me" content/gift offerings, or C) "if you leave, it'll be hell for you" (aka: the "F2P gameplay is a living nightmare" model).

 

It's not a new idea I'm presenting here. Just classic salesmanship in the context of the online game market, i.e. fostering a human relationship with the customer. Or, on a large scale, at least fostering the same feelings.

 

Most of the models I've encountered are ruled by a sort of anxious fear. "The competition is fierce and we have to cling to every dime and nickel we can get." Never mind that the more human approach to salesmanship has been proven to work ten times over and it doesn't leave people feeling like they've been cheated. Quite the opposite.

 

Do they "need" to change? I don't know. I'm not looking at their profit margins and I don't really care what those numbers are. It's obvious to me, from my own observations, that even the most profitable of games like these (in pure math) often hemorrhage players like mad and have a high turnover rate (lots leaving, lots of new people coming in). Some of this, of course, is just people changing interests, but it's obvious that part of it is the models themselves.

 

Games like these have always faced the problem of people getting "bored" from "lack of new content" and some of them have worked themselves into this weird frenzy, where they take on crazy development cycles to try to keep people happy. All the while forgetting that while boredom is one reason people might abandon ship, they aren't as likely to leave if they feel valued.

 

Ultimately, what people want is a feeling. This is true for most entertainment and just products in general. Advertisers have learned how to exploit this, but it seems they haven't all learned the lesson that most people aren't that stupid on the whole and most of them will sooner or later realize they're being exploited, if that is what is happening. They will then act accordingly, if they have any amount of healthy self-esteem; they will drop the product like dirt on their shoe if it stops living up to its purported transactional value.

 

I don't know why you are still talking about entitlement. As I've stated multiple times, that is not what I'm talking about. No one is entitled to anything, but even the simple act of having that in your head can be a problem right out of the gate because it puts buyer and seller at odds with each other, drawing lines in the sand, saying that no humanity is allowed to enter the equation. If this post does not make it clear that this isn't about entitlement, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

Call it what you want.

 

Call it "asking to feel valued" or "a more human approach" if it makes you feel better.

 

It seems to me that your "suggestion" boils down to "I want to be able to have what I want without having to do what is necessary to obtain it." Even the title of your suggestion thread shows it, IMO. "Subs should be able to buy 'pack' contents outright." That sure seems like an "entitled" attitude to me.

 

You acknowledge that you don't even care BW's profit margins. That sounds to me like, at the very least, you "don't care" if BW would lose revenue by acceding to your "suggestion"--making pack items available for direct purchase. That sure sounds like an "entitled" attitude to me.

 

If BW did make pack items available for direct purchase, what would you suggest for a price for the vented lightsabers, for example?

[Rolodome]

Call it what you want.

 

Call it "asking to feel valued" or "a more human approach" if it makes you feel better.

 

It seems to me that your "suggestion" boils down to "I want to be able to have what I want without having to do what is necessary to obtain it." Even the title of your suggestion thread shows it, IMO. "Subs should be able to buy 'pack' contents outright." That sure seems like an "entitled" attitude to me.

 

You acknowledge that you don't even care BW's profit margins. That sounds to me like, at the very least, you "don't care" if BW would lose revenue by acceding to your "suggestion"--making pack items available for direct purchase. That sure sounds like an "entitled" attitude to me.

 

If BW did make pack items available for direct purchase, what would you suggest for a price for the vented lightsabers, for example?

Straight from my OP:

I have offered some ideas for how to build respect

this is not about "content" or "items" specifically. It's about attitude

 

Not sure why you are hung up on the specifics, when I never have been. It's pretty silly. It's impossible for us to have a real conversation this way.

 

I figured you would comment on the profit margins thing. Of course I care whether they profit and do well, in the context of my interest in the game. All I meant with that comment is that I don't need a spreadsheet in front of me to trust in the trends I've observed, nor do I need it to understand how human relationships work.

 

To answer your question: If they made them direct purchase for subs, I imagine a good CC number would be whatever is in line with other direct purchases. Meaning if most lightsabers are sold for 1000 CC (I have no idea if that's the case, it's just an example) then the vented lightsaber would be sold for 1000. If direct-purchase lightsabers vary in price based on how rare they want them to be, already, then vented might vary, depending on how it is ranked.

 

In other words, it would be simplest to use whatever direct-purchase pricing system they already have. And since it would be consistent, it would probably feel the most fair. Using the opportunity to pull out disproportionately high CC cost for items out of packs would only undermine the point of selling them direct in the first place. It could even be a one-time purchase for your account (or server, I guess? since unlocks are legacy bound I think?). The idea being that you have the opportunity to make the straight, good faith purchase, but the market doesn't get flooded with these items by subs and packs are still appealing. I'm not convinced this wouldn't feel too technical though (the one-time purchase idea); my goal here is to get away from things being overly transactional and detached in nature.

 

It's all about what the system communicates and how it goes about doing it.

 

I do dislike gambling on principle, but I'm not going to ask for it to go away completely, because it's simply never going to happen and it would be pointless to try to argue that it would be to their benefit to do so, because it's probably not to their benefit to do so. Which is why I'm suggesting things that build loyalty, while allowing those who enjoy rolling the dice to still roll the dice.

[Ratajack]

Straight from my OP:

 

 

Not sure why you are hung up on the specifics, when I never have been. It's pretty silly. It's impossible for us to have a real conversation this way.

 

I figured you would comment on the profit margins thing. Of course I care whether they profit and do well, in the context of my interest in the game. All I meant with that comment is that I don't need a spreadsheet in front of me to trust in the trends I've observed, nor do I need it to understand how human relationships work.

 

To answer your question: If they made them direct purchase for subs, I imagine a good CC number would be whatever is in line with other direct purchases. Meaning if most lightsabers are sold for 1000 CC (I have no idea if that's the case, it's just an example) then the vented lightsaber would be sold for 1000. If direct-purchase lightsabers vary in price based on how rare they want them to be, already, then vented might vary, depending on how it is ranked.

 

In other words, it would be simplest to use whatever direct-purchase pricing system they already have. And since it would be consistent, it would probably feel the most fair. Using the opportunity to pull out disproportionately high CC cost for items out of packs would only undermine the point of selling them direct in the first place. It could even be a one-time purchase for your account (or server, I guess? since unlocks are legacy bound I think?). The idea being that you have the opportunity to make the straight, good faith purchase, but the market doesn't get flooded with these items by subs and packs are still appealing. I'm not convinced this wouldn't feel too technical though (the one-time purchase idea); my goal here is to get away from things being overly transactional and detached in nature.

 

It's all about what the system communicates and how it goes about doing it.

 

I do dislike gambling on principle, but I'm not going to ask for it to go away completely, because it's simply never going to happen and it would be pointless to try to argue that it would be to their benefit to do so, because it's probably not to their benefit to do so. Which is why I'm suggesting things that build loyalty, while allowing those who enjoy rolling the dice to still roll the dice.

 

As far as I know, items that were initially released as direct purchase items do not have a "rarity" as they are direct purchase, so expecting BW to base the direct purchase price of pack items on the direct purchase price of items that were released as direct purchase items is illogical.

 

The are times when BW puts a pack item up for a limited time direct purchase, such as the Xoxaan armor and the temple guardian armor. Both of these armor sets were substantially more expensive to direct purchase than armor sets that were released from the start as direct purchase items rather than placing them in packs. Both of those sets had people complaining about the cost to direct purchase, as they were more expensive than other armor sets that were initially released as direct purchase items. Neither of those sets was platinum rarity, either.

 

It is likely not in BW's best financial interest to offer all pack items (or even the highly desired items, such as the vented lightsaber) for direct sale. The cost to directly purchase many of the items in packs would likely send many of the "entitled, instant gratification, have to have it NOW and for as little cost or effort as possible" crowd into apoplexy.

 

Your "suggestion" of a 1000 CC cost for a direct purchase of the vented lightsaber is highly unrealistic, IMO.

 

Many people purchase packs or hypercrates, either to try to "hit the jackpot" or to resell on the GTN. Neither of us have the numbers, but given the numbers of people posting that they bought multiple hypercrates trying to hit one of the many "jackpots", I'm guessing that BW brings in substantial revenue from pack or hypercrate purchases.

 

When calculating a direct purchase cost, one must take into account the rarity of the item, as this will often be a major factor in the numbers of packs or hypercrates sold. BW would need to set the price high enough that they would not lose revenue due to probably loss of pack or hypercrate sales. After all, why would people be buying packs or hypercrates to try to "hit the jackpot" and get that vented lightsaber when they can just plop down some CC's and be guaranteed to have it.

 

The loss in revenue caused by decreased pack and hypercrate sales would have to be made up in the direct purchase cost of that vented lightsaber. If people are buying 3 or 4 hypercrates to get that lightsaber, then BW would "lose" the revenue from 3 or 4 hypercrates.

 

Given the rarity of the vented lightsaber and the numbers of packs and hypercrates people are purchasing to try to get one, I would expect that if they made the vented lightsaber available for direct purchase, the cost would likely be in the 10's of thousands of CC's, likely far more than a hypercrate.

Edited June 19, 2016 by Ratajack