Re: Iron Crown Event: Is it a predatory monetisation tactic?
@ajharris21 An interesting response and you are correct in that it is down to the individual responsible in regards to them being the only ones to make the decision as to whether or not they should spend money.
However, as you have stated, you have interpreted that I am saying what the developers and publishers are doing is outright intended wrongdoing against the consumer demographic.
It isn't exactly what I intended.
Yes I described EA as "the enemy", though I only do so to highlight the increasing concerns amongst their consumers that their business practises and ethical conduct is "questionably wrong".
Everything EA is doing here is perfectly legal. That is undisputed and I'm certainly not saying we should all band together, march on the seats of governing power of our various countries and demand that EA and all their shareholders be thrown to the lions. Not at all.
I just want to discuss the need for greater awareness of how companies like EA make their money from consumer standpoint. With that often being from, again, questionable methods.
Yes gambling addicts should seek help.
Yes parents should be more involved and aware of how their children interact with such media as this.
However the primary concern is that there really should be greater transparency as to why things are marketed the way they are.
"They're not loot boxes, they're surprise mechanics" is a prime example of how we can see a multi billion dollar industry leader employ these questionable tactics to help support their unsustainable long term strategies.
If people want something they will obviously have to exchange something to obtain it. And yes businesses set a price for that, as rightly they should. Yet when the monetisation efforts companies like EA employ are, like I said, ultimately unsustainable, it calls into question why the consumer should continue to support them. Along with providing a better platform for those consumers to debate their criticisms and encourage positive change in the industry itself.
I like the point you're trying to make and respect it. Better skins, cost more. It really is as simple as that. However is it wrong to question the reasoning as to why the chance (and that's only a chance) to obtain these new skins is several times the price of the other skins available to the player?
Like you say, the game is totally fine without them. But when people are investing their money only for a chance to obtain something they want and then have no control whatsoever as to what loot they get once they've spent the money, players (I think) have to voice their displeasure in the hopes to see greater value for their investment.
Most players who seem outraged at this aren't demanding free additional content and are happy to spend money on what they want. They just want to see it distributed in a more favourable way.
However, as you have stated, you have interpreted that I am saying what the developers and publishers are doing is outright intended wrongdoing against the consumer demographic.
It isn't exactly what I intended.
Yes I described EA as "the enemy", though I only do so to highlight the increasing concerns amongst their consumers that their business practises and ethical conduct is "questionably wrong".
Everything EA is doing here is perfectly legal. That is undisputed and I'm certainly not saying we should all band together, march on the seats of governing power of our various countries and demand that EA and all their shareholders be thrown to the lions. Not at all.
I just want to discuss the need for greater awareness of how companies like EA make their money from consumer standpoint. With that often being from, again, questionable methods.
Yes gambling addicts should seek help.
Yes parents should be more involved and aware of how their children interact with such media as this.
However the primary concern is that there really should be greater transparency as to why things are marketed the way they are.
"They're not loot boxes, they're surprise mechanics" is a prime example of how we can see a multi billion dollar industry leader employ these questionable tactics to help support their unsustainable long term strategies.
If people want something they will obviously have to exchange something to obtain it. And yes businesses set a price for that, as rightly they should. Yet when the monetisation efforts companies like EA employ are, like I said, ultimately unsustainable, it calls into question why the consumer should continue to support them. Along with providing a better platform for those consumers to debate their criticisms and encourage positive change in the industry itself.
I like the point you're trying to make and respect it. Better skins, cost more. It really is as simple as that. However is it wrong to question the reasoning as to why the chance (and that's only a chance) to obtain these new skins is several times the price of the other skins available to the player?
Like you say, the game is totally fine without them. But when people are investing their money only for a chance to obtain something they want and then have no control whatsoever as to what loot they get once they've spent the money, players (I think) have to voice their displeasure in the hopes to see greater value for their investment.
Most players who seem outraged at this aren't demanding free additional content and are happy to spend money on what they want. They just want to see it distributed in a more favourable way.
