90% of the Gemstore cosmetic items are not available for purchasing, RCA

[Derdzvero.7051]

Cheers guys, thanks for the good words and nice discussion. Have fun all!

;) I'm just buying lots of drinks instead, the store offers anything from 0 to 85%vol and its ready for pickup ;)

[Cuks.8241]

OP you are basing all of this on the thesis that people go spending rationally. Which is definitely not the case at all.

People do not make lists with things they want and spend only for items on that list. People come to the store and see a cool glider skin, 4 days left and even if they don't need it now or doesn't fit any wardrobe they will buy it cuz "4 days, maybe miss it forever". And they do the same next week and week after that and they still didn't buy the skin they really wanted, so they check store more and buy more stuff. Or they just have birthday or holiday or pay day and just buy something from the store and it is not really the item they really want.

I am no market expert but this seems like a very plausible selling scheme. It works much better than just person buying their favorite skin and use it forever.

[Zaklex.6308]

 

> @"Derdzvero.7051" said:

 

Not only does it work for ArenaNet, but it works for even the biggest retailers out there. Even Walmart and Target do this type of marketing to a degree, though the store might seem like it carries everything all the time I can guarantee that there are some items they only carry at certain times and bring them back occasionally, they make more on those particular items when they do that. It's a proven marketing concept they teach everyone that learns marketing.

 

 

[mindcircus.1506]

> @"Derdzvero.7051" said:

> Imagine Riot blocking 95% of skins behind a timegate in store and being still a successful business..

It really is time to stop talking like Riot is the kind of business any other should be emulating.

Their rapid decline in revenue and toxic culture from lead devs down to the player base is not something to go around holding up as an example.

[zealex.9410]

> @"mindcircus.1506" said:

> > @"Derdzvero.7051" said:

> > Imagine Riot blocking 95% of skins behind a timegate in store and being still a successful business..

> It really is time to stop talking like Riot is the kind of business any other should be emulating.

> Their rapid decline in revenue and toxic culture from lead devs down to the player base is not something to go around holding up as an example.

 

They didnt hold any of that as an example, they just referenced riot's store for cosmetics.

[Derdzvero.7051]

> @"Zaklex.6308" said:

>

> > @"Derdzvero.7051" said:

>

> Not only does it work for ArenaNet, but it works for even the biggest retailers out there. Even Walmart and Target do this type of marketing to a degree, though the store might seem like it carries everything all the time I can guarantee that there are some items they only carry at certain times and bring them back occasionally, they make more on those particular items when they do that. It's a proven marketing concept they teach everyone that learns marketing.

>

>

 

To a degree yes, but devil is hidden in details. You can't compare stores, which limit some goods, while providing 1000 alternatives permanently. Also you have to consider if those goods can be bought somewhere else or are offered exclusively..if those are being produced by a corporation with huge portfolio or small company with 1 product...and in which segment of economics they fall (can't apply same rules for home appliances, cosmetics, pharmacy..).. So keep in mind all these reflect on marketing strategy, even change it during product's lifecycle. That is why I gave the example with iPhone in early times and later- it migrated from being a true timegated exclusive, via price/quality/fashion competition to become a mass object on the market.

 

If we focus on gaming companies with similar approach, I'd give Riot and WG as examples. One offering all cosmetics permanently, boosting sales with short offers/events, while the other limiting all, but offering enough alternatives each hour and enough motivation to watch out for something specific. Just check them, from marketing perspective they are brilliant, in my humble opinion..

 

 

Anet are reading the marketing books as 1st grade schoolboy, when declaring 90% of the cosmetics as being "limited edition and availability", and at the same time cosmetics being a main source of income.. I don't think we should discuss this further, neither should I care-my finances won't end up in Anet's pot anyway.

 

P.S. when I'm reading the thread, looking at TP and game as whole..how it developed in last 1 year.. i think I'm wrong in the assumption that marketing reasons have anything to do with cosmetics' limited availability. It's just the same time gating culture, Anet are implementing everywhere in GW2: crafting, achievements, objects, tasks... it's not different than sitting with bag of goods in front of a robot in Sanswepth Isles for 7 days and click F 2 times a day.. it's not different than Skyscale's flop to wait, just to be told you'd have to go to same spot, you were yesterday at.

It's not different than mashing 300 dragon pinatas with F, but only 1 time a year..and so on. Gathering Winterberties and calling it an exciting gameplay mechanics...It's just Anet's understanding of content and keeping consumer's interest. That's what they do, it has nothing to do with reasoning and marketing/sales. I'm not their target anyway, no need trying to understand them. Let's move on, each to direction of his/hers interest. Have fun guys, no sarcasm at all, I'm honest here.

[Derdzvero.7051]

> @"Cuks.8241" said:

> OP you are basing all of this on the thesis that people go spending rationally. Which is definitely not the case at all.

> People do not make lists with things they want and spend only for items on that list. People come to the store and see a cool glider skin, 4 days left and even if they don't need it now or doesn't fit any wardrobe they will buy it cuz "4 days, maybe miss it forever". And they do the same next week and week after that and they still didn't buy the skin they really wanted, so they check store more and buy more stuff. Or they just have birthday or holiday or pay day and just buy something from the store and it is not really the item they really want.

> I am no market expert but this seems like a very plausible selling scheme. It works much better than just person buying their favorite skin and use it forever.

 

I think you are correct! I can't understand that because it's not my consumer's profile, hence the big question mark above my head and didn't even consider it as possible ;) well, for Anet I hope they have enough of those people on board :)

[Warlord.9082]

The reason is artificial scarcity. That is absolutely correct. It is also predatory behavior aimed at people impulse buying useless nonsense.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Warlord.9082" said:

> It is also predatory behavior aimed at people impulse buying useless nonsense.

All marketing and sales is "predatory" if you use that definition. There's no meaningful difference between most toothpastes or most laundry detergents etc. The only distinguishing features are artificial ones: branding and cosmetics and so on. All of that aims at people who don't make purchases choices 100% rationally. Artificial scarcity is just one of many tools retails use.

 

There's an argument some advertisers (and self-help gurus) use: all conversation is ultimately manipulative. You hold a point of view and you use words to convince others that it is correct, "manipulating" them to change their mind. The argument goes: so advertising (and verbal and peer pressure etc) are just extensions of what people do already.

 

Most people in civil society probably draw the line somewhere between "offering a rational argument" and "manipulating people to spend money." My point is that where we draw the line is somewhat arbitrary. It's hard to say that "artificial scarcity" is worse than other tools used by retailers, in the absence of any other context.

 

****

As the the OP's final point:

> I can't understand that because it's not my consumer's profile, hence the big question mark above my head and didn't even consider it as possible ;)

Definitely, it's counter-intuitive based on a strictly logical point of view.

 

> well, for Anet I hope they have enough of those people on board :)

Given ANet's longevity, it seems more likely that they know what they are doing than it is that we can correctly second-guess their methods.

 

 

[IndigoSundown.5419]

I think it's fine that the OP ask for more access to store items. However, I think the argument in favor of that request is flawed. The OP is making the assumption that enough people feel as s/he does to mean that ANet is losing out on money.

 

It is a very common assumption on the internet, that everyone in one's peer group thinks the same. Social media not only reinforces this belief, it tends to _entice_ members of the peer group to conform. This helps that peer group identify members and opponents. However, an MMO community is not that kind of peer group. The only thing all of its members have in common is that they play the game.

 

Therefore, the assumption that large groups of people in an MMO community feel the same is not a safe one. The OP, in one response, says that "thousands" think as s/he does. That may or may not be so. I'm not going to seek out every thread and count. You cannot go by post count, because almost every thread sees as many or more people opposed to an argument as in favor, not to mention that some individuals post many times.

 

I'm not going to assume that ANet knows what it's doing. I'm not going to assume they don't. I am going to assume that they have more info than I do. They also have the responsibility to make their own decisions.

[Mea.5491]

Tbh, I just don't understand this "impulse buy" thing. What if I want to impulse buy but I CAN'T? Because that's what happens 98% of the time. There were Gem Store stuff I wanted to buy but they weren't available so I came up with an other look that didn't need the items. => I ignored the items later when they became available because I didn't need them anymore. => No money from me. :confounded: Maybe Anet's sales method works on SOME people but not on me, lol.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

I'm afraid I'm uninformed. What is RCA?

[zealex.9410]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"Warlord.9082" said:

> > It is also predatory behavior aimed at people impulse buying useless nonsense.

> All marketing and sales is "predatory" if you use that definition. There's no meaningful difference between most toothpastes or most laundry detergents etc. The only distinguishing features are artificial ones: branding and cosmetics and so on. All of that aims at people who don't make purchases choices 100% rationally. Artificial scarcity is just one of many tools retails use.

>

> There's an argument some advertisers (and self-help gurus) use: all conversation is ultimately manipulative. You hold a point of view and you use words to convince others that it is correct, "manipulating" them to change their mind. The argument goes: so advertising (and verbal and peer pressure etc) are just extensions of what people do already.

>

> Most people in civil society probably draw the line somewhere between "offering a rational argument" and "manipulating people to spend money." My point is that where we draw the line is somewhat arbitrary. It's hard to say that "artificial scarcity" is worse than other tools used by retailers, in the absence of any other context.

>

> ****

> As the the OP's final point:

> > I can't understand that because it's not my consumer's profile, hence the big question mark above my head and didn't even consider it as possible ;)

> Definitely, it's counter-intuitive based on a strictly logical point of view.

>

> > well, for Anet I hope they have enough of those people on board :)

> Given ANet's longevity, it seems more likely that they know what they are doing than it is that we can correctly second-guess their methods.

>

>

 

I dont see something predatory about having all your cosmetics available for purchase in your store like some other games do.

[Elspereth.1280]

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> I'm afraid I'm uninformed. What is RCA?

 

You're not the only one. When I hear RCA I think Radio Corporation of America, I assume that is not what he means :)