Lycidas
Lycidas
About
- Username
- Lycidas
- Joined
- Visits
- 5,504
- Last Active
Comments
-
@kcwolf1975 said:
Are they really creating artificial scarcity, or are they just selling holiday skins during said holiday?
There are too many skins available now anyways, they should go into some type of rotation.
Not having Christmas skins available in July does not make BHVR an evil company like you are portraying them.
Me love my Christmas skins
Yes, they removed SO MANY skins with this move, I love my store with ONE LESS SKIN per character, it was so messy before..
-
@AssortedSorting said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3287428#Comment_3287428
I'd say copyright infringement/violations and false advertisement fall under a different category than FOMO.
If the kid is making their own money, then they'll need to learn to budget it. If it's not their money, the parent(s) needs to teach the kid about responsible spending prior to letting the kid access their credit card.
And if we're talking about poor impulse control and "I want it now", I don't think it being seasonal or all-year-round will make a significant difference. New thing, me want now.
I'd actually be interested in seeing how delayed gratification from seeing an old cosmetic being unavailable until a future date would impact those same people who would have immediately purchased it otherwise.
Though there is something to be said about the presentation of the seasonal cosmetics. Emblazoning "LIMITED TIME ONLY, GET IT WHILE YOU CAN", is disgusting. Just mark it as seasonal. Let people learn what that means. Try to avoid words that promote a sense of urgency.
Don't take things that literally, it was an example, but as long as I don't break copyrights and I don't say that the cards are original, I'm not breaking the law. But as I said, it was an example to show how saying "Eh, it's your problem if you can't think straight or control yourself" is a dumb saying.
People who buy skins as soon as they hit the store are not impacted at all, that's totally true, the most impacted ones are those susceptible to exactly what you said: the "TIME LIMITED ONLY, BUY IT NOW BEFORE IT LEAVES!" part.
And no, saying "Seasonal" wouldn't solve that issue unfortunately.
And we haven't even touched on how they chose to categorize things as "Seasonal"
Idk about you, but a moose corpse doesn't seem "seasonal" to me
-
@Coulderoi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3287411#Comment_3287411
Just because I'm attacking people that complain doesn't mean I'm defending them. Although I don't see a problem with a company trying to encourage sales of their product. Also about being spoiled look at smite there's most likely 100 skins that are never obtainable again.
Then WHY are you attacking people complaining?
"Look over there, someone else is doing it!" doesn't make it okay.
It's not okay if Smite does it, it's not okay if DBD does it, but I don't play Smite and this is not Smite's forum.
-
@Quizzy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3287428#Comment_3287428
Last time i checked and i know i am, this is an approved rated M video game. Now if you wanna do that to children thats on you. Thats more frowned upon and illegal. Youll be charged with counterfeit merchandise alongside predatory offenses to underage civilians. But you do you.
oh and i will save this as proof if you do it. Im about to snitch if u do. Yup! Try me.
Selling things to children is not illegal, last time I checked
Nor is selling clearly fake things, as long as I don't break copyright rules
But that of course was an example, I'd get my kneecaps smashed by some angry parent in that situation, and I wouldn't blame them.
Both actions take advantage of vulnerable people though, children on one hand, people with impulse control issues on the other, why should one be different than the other?
-
@Quizzy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3287407#Comment_3287407
"The people it is designed to affect, are those with any form of impaired impulse control, or poor budgeting skills."
That honestly sounds like their own problem that they need to overcome themselves. This is a common business practice that existed since the start of mankind and it will never go away.
Ok, I'm on my way to sell fake pokemon cards to small children since they have poor budgeting skill and can't tell the difference between an original and a fake card.
That sounds like their own problem that they need to overcome themselves. I'm doing nothing wrong, am I?
-
They used FOMO at the time, yes.
is the "We don't like exclusives" statement completely false now?
That's pretty self explanatory when you look at the Deep Rift honestly.
-
@Coulderoi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3287390#Comment_3287390
Literally not defending it. I'm saying that this is not something to bastardize and lampoon a company over.
Cool, if you're not defending it why saying that people complaining about it are spoiled then?
@kcwolf1975 said:
Do you really think BHVR is targeting this extremely small market you speak of?
Or is it more likely that they simply decided to have holiday skins be made available during those holidays?
Or maybe they just don't want every skin available at any time because it clutters up the store?
I see no problem with them rotating skins and only having a dozen or so available per character.
Yes, FOMO tactics work especially good with that "extremely small" market
Were the skins REALLY cluttering up the store?
How many skins did they remove with this fantastic solution? 2 per character? Wow, so much clutter removed, thanks BHVR! Now I can see the whole 10 skins for Jonah instead of the 11 I was seeing before!
-
@Donleov said:
I really don't understand why people get mad about this but ok
If you have 10 minutes, watch this, it summarizes most of the points made in these topics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPir_8lyhoM&t=560s&ab_channel=MintSkull
If you don't have 10 minutes, read this instead, it focuses on ONE particular problem of these tactics, but it's one of the most sensitive ones
"I've been seeing a surprising number of posts defending this kind of practice, while not really grasping what is actually happening with it. FOMO causes an irrational shift in prioritization by directly manipulating the availability of a purchase. This shift is something that your average person is able to maintain a rational perspective regarding, such as "i don't need it that much" or "I can wait for another chance later." The people it is designed to affect, are those with any form of impaired impulse control, or poor budgeting skills. There have been notorious GDC lectures outlining very specifically how to take advantage of these people and try to get as much money as possible out of them, with FOMO being one of the key methods. It is a known business practice that very specifically targets a vulnerable demographic.
Lets say you are faced with this situation, and have other more important obligations and are unable to make the purchase. A typical mind will think "oh well" and go without, but an affected person will start trying to readjust their budget to make it work, they may borrow money or even forgo financial obligations altogether as the need to commit to the purchase or lose out on it entirely outweighs their otherwise rational budgeting and prioritization. Its actually part of gambling addictions as well, as "the next bet can be the win that offsets all my losses" even after going into debt. It is a very real and well documented psychological effect.
The worst part is that, again, it has very minimal impact on most people. For many its not about losing the ability to purchase something like an ingame cosmetic, and they may not even see that as financially reasonable as it is. The problem is that it so very specifically preys on those who are vulnerable to the tactic, who are treated as whales (individuals who spend more than the average consumer, to make up for a lack of sales elsewhere) in the process.
Its an absolute shame how much this kind of practice is not only accepted, but even defended in the industry. There can literally be people bypassing anything from holiday gifts for loved ones to financial responsibilities such as paying their bills just to sell a few more ugly sweater model meshes and textures."
-
@GuyFawx said:
You guys call it scummy but its basic marketing and its been done by so many other companies as a way of creating fake scarcity. Stop getting so bent out of shape over BHVRs marketing department its not like they are forcing you to buy skins.
@kcwolf1975 said:
Guyfawx is right, there is nothing scummy about this. It is extremely common, nothing shady about it. What is the point of having 20+ skins for one character to be available at any given time? Who cares if they put them in some type of rotation so there is only 10 available. Plus this is all about skins which have zero impact anyways.
@Coulderoi said:
You guys really are spoiled, you must only play dbd if you think this is anything to complain about.
I've been seeing a surprising number of posts defending this kind of practice, while not really grasping what is actually happening with it. FOMO causes an irrational shift in prioritization by directly manipulating the availability of a purchase. This shift is something that your average person is able to maintain a rational perspective regarding, such as "i don't need it that much" or "I can wait for another chance later." The people it is designed to affect, are those with any form of impaired impulse control, or poor budgeting skills. There have been notorious GDC lectures outlining very specifically how to take advantage of these people and try to get as much money as possible out of them, with FOMO being one of the key methods. It is a known business practice that very specifically targets a vulnerable demographic.
Lets say you are faced with this situation, and have other more important obligations and are unable to make the purchase. A typical mind will think "oh well" and go without, but an affected person will start trying to readjust their budget to make it work, they may borrow money or even forgo financial obligations altogether as the need to commit to the purchase or lose out on it entirely outweighs their otherwise rational budgeting and prioritization. Its actually part of gambling addictions as well, as "the next bet can be the win that offsets all my losses" even after going into debt. It is a very real and well documented psychological effect.
The worst part is that, again, it has very minimal impact on most people. For many its not about losing the ability to purchase something like an ingame cosmetic, and they may not even see that as financially reasonable as it is. The problem is that it so very specifically preys on those who are vulnerable to the tactic, who are treated as whales (individuals who spend more than the average consumer, to make up for a lack of sales elsewhere) in the process.
Its an absolute shame how much this kind of practice is not only accepted, but even defended in the industry. There can literally be people bypassing anything from holiday gifts for loved ones to financial responsibilities such as paying their bills just to sell a few more ugly sweater model meshes and textures.
There, read that before you join the "It's a skin, who cares if you can't get it whenever you want" choir
Yes, it's done in other games, NO, it DOESN'T make it acceptable.
-
@fogdonkey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3287243#Comment_3287243
Yes, one is about money, the other is about time. Not sure what is your point here, maybe that money is more valuable than time? Well I guess it's different for each person, but in the end time is money, so it's the same.
I already told why they're two completely different things. "Poor impulse control" is being taken advantage of to make more money, "Playing too much DBD" is not.
You can start asking for a time limit on how much DBD you can play if you think that's an issue, but there was never one implemented, but as @RainehDaze says time-limits in games are used for the opposite effect, to keep bringing people back to play because "Your energy is full! Come play again!".
Up until the introduction of time-limited skins DBD was not engaging in FOMO (for the most part, there was a tiny little bit here and there but still bearable), now they are actually starting to actively utilize that tactic AND dragging previously released cosmetics into it. Hence the people complaining about it.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3287243#Comment_3287243
"Yes they did, it's in the in-game news"
Oh, thank you. I totally missed that part.
Understandable, it wasn't written in the first communication unless I'm mistaken and BHVR updated the news only after a couple days
Totally admirable way of communicating such an important change, I know.
-
@fogdonkey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3286716#Comment_3286716
Hmm, interesting, there are definitely some valid points in what you write. I guess most people who complain have some partial FOMO mental issue. Still it seems to me like some random problem that for some reason is put under spotlight. E.g. why isn't anyone complaining that there is no time limitation on how much DBD you can play... There definitely are people who spend too much time on it, because they have some gaming addiction and no built-in time limit is not helping with that.
There is a key difference between a person spending too much time playing DBD and one buying skins because they have poor impulse control: one is being taken advantage of to gain more money, the other is not.
Now if DBD were to implement a time limit in how much you can play, and ask you to pay to play more, that would be a different situation (but of course, that would be an extreme situation)
@[Deleted User] said:
Did BHVR announce this?
Yes they did, it's in the in-game news
-
@WesCravenFan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3286712#Comment_3286712
Inability to do it does not make it untrue.
This whole thing is people taking things to an extreme.
Do you get THIS mad when the McRib goes away? When a coupon for fabric softener expires?
Do you get THIS mad when the McRib goes away? When a coupon for fabric softener expires?
When the McRib goes away I'm a bit puzzled, but the McRib has a cost associated to it being offered 100% of the time: McDonalds has to store the meat it uses to make that bun, and if that meat is not used after a while it goes bad an McDonalds has to throw it away. Maybe the McRib wouldn't sell so well if it was available all year round and they'd need to throw away too much meat, losing too much in the process. (And that was actually most likely the case, if you check the McRib history)
Discounts are a totally different thing, BHVR has them on outfits and noone is complaining about it.
-
@fogdonkey said:
What is the problem with time limited cosmetics? If you like it, then buy it. If you don't like it, then why does it matter that it disappears for some time?
From another thread, a very detailed explanation why these tactics are "questionable" at best:
I've been seeing a surprising number of posts defending this kind of practice, while not really grasping what is actually happening with it. FOMO causes an irrational shift in prioritization by directly manipulating the availability of a purchase. This shift is something that your average person is able to maintain a rational perspective regarding, such as "i don't need it that much" or "I can wait for another chance later." The people it is designed to affect, are those with any form of impaired impulse control, or poor budgeting skills. There have been notorious GDC lectures outlining very specifically how to take advantage of these people and try to get as much money as possible out of them, with FOMO being one of the key methods. It is a known business practice that very specifically targets a vulnerable demographic.
Lets say you are faced with this situation, and have other more important obligations and are unable to make the purchase. A typical mind will think "oh well" and go without, but an affected person will start trying to readjust their budget to make it work, they may borrow money or even forgo financial obligations altogether as the need to commit to the purchase or lose out on it entirely outweighs their otherwise rational budgeting and prioritization. Its actually part of gambling addictions as well, as "the next bet can be the win that offsets all my losses" even after going into debt. It is a very real and well documented psychological effect.
The worst part is that, again, it has very minimal impact on most people. For many its not about losing the ability to purchase something like an ingame cosmetic, and they may not even see that as financially reasonable as it is. The problem is that it so very specifically preys on those who are vulnerable to the tactic, who are treated as whales (individuals who spend more than the average consumer, to make up for a lack of sales elsewhere) in the process.
Its an absolute shame how much this kind of practice is not only accepted, but even defended in the industry. There can literally be people bypassing anything from holiday gifts for loved ones to financial responsibilities such as paying their bills just to sell a few more ugly sweater model meshes and textures.
While it doesn't affect me or you, I think we should condemn tactics that prey on the most vulnerable.
In the same way we think it's not okay to sell clearly fake things to clearly gullible people.
-
@WesCravenFan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3286608#Comment_3286608
I stopped reading at "late stage capitalism". The rest of that paragraph just turned into socialist drivel.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3286617#Comment_3286617
Yes, they can medically advise you eat food. Which would solve the hunger issue.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3286629#Comment_3286629
It really is that simple. If you think it is more complicated than that, it's sad.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3286644#Comment_3286644
Empathy is for colorblind mode, and people that were suffering serious eye strain from flashlight clicking macros, and the Light in the Fog event.
Not "Awwww, my digital clothes are going away!"
"Eat if you're starving" is medical advice now, great.
You touched the bottom of the barrel, no need to start digging.
-
@Quizzy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3286326#Comment_3286326
Yes it does. More money for them, more likely to get stranger things back. Isnt that what ppl wanted in the 1st place. Lol
Pretty sure Netflix pulled the Stranger Things license because they wanted to try their own gaming service, so that was not a "money" issue
Amd BTW, it wouldn't surprise me if we get ST back in the future given how poorly the Netflix gaming services went
-
@BlightedDolphin said:
Does this include Krampus?
Yes it does, of course
-
@Emeal said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3286051#Comment_3286051
Not us, I don't have a problem with it.
Well, other people do and are rightfully complaining about it.
Did you have a problem with Christmas cosmetics being available all year round? If you didn't, why are you so against having that version of the store instead of this new time limited thing?
I didn't see anyone ever complaining about being able to buy a pajama (a PAJAMA is now a CHRISTMAS SKIN) skin in June
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285333#Comment_3285333
Like I said, it has the opposite effect. All you're doing is proving how much demand there is for these cosmetics.
Voting with your wallet is enough, it's representative of your voice. You get one vote, just like everyone else.
Just because everyone else is voting against you and funding these marketing tactics, doesn't mean your vote isn't worth just as much as theirs. It means you're the minority.
No no, voting with my wallet is NOT enough, because me not buying a skin could be attributed to anything
The fact that I'm complaining here on the forums expressing precisely WHY I'm not buying a cosmetics enforces my vote.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3286004#Comment_3286004
I would describe it as an inconvenience if anything.
And why should we defend things that inconvenience us?
-
@LittleBigSunset said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285628#Comment_3285628
Thank you! It's so nice to see someone who understands the point of why this practice is such garbage and explain it so well too.
I wasn't the original poster, @Ryuhi was, but yeah I shared your sentiment so I started trying to let others understand why fighting against this is important
Yes, it feels like fighting windmills for now but at least we're making noise about it on the forums
-
@WesCravenFan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285662#Comment_3285662
So should we ban commercials for food at dinner time because it targets the vulnerable hungry?
...what?
-
@Emeal said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285631#Comment_3285631
Yeah, I would never describe that as a wound.
Ok, how would you describe that then? Something to be happy about? Something to cheer for? A positive thing? Elaborate please.
-
@WesCravenFan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285628#Comment_3285628
That's a lot of words to say "It's mean because some people are weak so that makes the company evil."
I'm sorry, that sounds as dumb as "Coors selling a case of beer for 20% off is predatory towards alcoholics".
Sorry, your comparison doesn't really make sense.
Alcoholics have an addiction, they are going to buy their "drug" no matter what.
Coors offering a discount is aimed at those who usually wouldn't buy beer or they'd buy less of it.
That situation is almost completely opposite to what's happening here:
Time limited skins target more efficiently those with impulse control issues that are more subject to FOMO
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285610#Comment_3285610
Combine this with the fact that December and January are notoriously the times that people struggle the absolute most with money and it's completely predatory on those with poor impulse control whilst also being exclusionary to those on tight budgets who can't just yet afford the new skin for real money (but have been saving shards, which doesn't matter now) and so will miss out for a year because we're in a cost of living, and general economic, crisis.
All the while this move makes absolutely zero microeconomic sense, because so far I've only ever seen one person explicitly say they like time gated cosmetics. Most are either "I don't care" or "This is disgusting" but not many have gone "YES! THIS IS BRILLIANT!"
There's nothing like punishing the poorest of your playerbase just for being poor, huh?
Yeah, and people saying "I don't care" should learn that if you don't care, you shouldn't be pushing against those who are saying "I don't like this"
Because if you really don't care, you have no reason to do so.
-
@Emeal said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285596#Comment_3285596
What!
You can user flowery language, but when I do im a troll. INCREDIBLE!
Ok, let's try this:
The wound is the fact that the store is going to have a reduced availability of choices: this is impairing my ability to see all my options when trying to decide which skin to buy.
I was able to do that before, I will not be able to do that anymore. That's a negative effect, that's the wound.
Are you satisfied or are you pretending to see physical blood?
-
@WesCravenFan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285608#Comment_3285608
Here is a product.
Buy it if you want, or don't.
I'm not seeing the manipulation. Either you want to buy the item in question, or not.
From another thread, a very detailed explanation why these tactics are "questionable" at best:
I've been seeing a surprising number of posts defending this kind of practice, while not really grasping what is actually happening with it. FOMO causes an irrational shift in prioritization by directly manipulating the availability of a purchase. This shift is something that your average person is able to maintain a rational perspective regarding, such as "i don't need it that much" or "I can wait for another chance later." The people it is designed to affect, are those with any form of impaired impulse control, or poor budgeting skills. There have been notorious GDC lectures outlining very specifically how to take advantage of these people and try to get as much money as possible out of them, with FOMO being one of the key methods. It is a known business practice that very specifically targets a vulnerable demographic.
Lets say you are faced with this situation, and have other more important obligations and are unable to make the purchase. A typical mind will think "oh well" and go without, but an affected person will start trying to readjust their budget to make it work, they may borrow money or even forgo financial obligations altogether as the need to commit to the purchase or lose out on it entirely outweighs their otherwise rational budgeting and prioritization. Its actually part of gambling addictions as well, as "the next bet can be the win that offsets all my losses" even after going into debt. It is a very real and well documented psychological effect.
The worst part is that, again, it has very minimal impact on most people. For many its not about losing the ability to purchase something like an ingame cosmetic, and they may not even see that as financially reasonable as it is. The problem is that it so very specifically preys on those who are vulnerable to the tactic, who are treated as whales (individuals who spend more than the average consumer, to make up for a lack of sales elsewhere) in the process.
Its an absolute shame how much this kind of practice is not only accepted, but even defended in the industry. There can literally be people bypassing anything from holiday gifts for loved ones to financial responsibilities such as paying their bills just to sell a few more ugly sweater model meshes and textures.
-
@Rudjohns said:
Next is: You are going to buy a limited time cosmetic, and they will also be limited time play, only during the events
Blighted Serum addon anyone?
-
"I've been seeing a surprising number of posts defending this kind of practice, while not really grasping what is actually happening with it. FOMO causes an irrational shift in prioritization by directly manipulating the availability of a purchase. This shift is something that your average person is able to maintain a rational perspective regarding, such as "i don't need it that much" or "I can wait for another chance later." The people it is designed to affect, are those with any form of impaired impulse control, or poor budgeting skills. There have been notorious GDC lectures outlining very specifically how to take advantage of these people and try to get as much money as possible out of them, with FOMO being one of the key methods. It is a known business practice that very specifically targets a vulnerable demographic.
Lets say you are faced with this situation, and have other more important obligations and are unable to make the purchase. A typical mind will think "oh well" and go without, but an affected person will start trying to readjust their budget to make it work, they may borrow money or even forgo financial obligations altogether as the need to commit to the purchase or lose out on it entirely outweighs their otherwise rational budgeting and prioritization. Its actually part of gambling addictions as well, as "the next bet can be the win that offsets all my losses" even after going into debt. It is a very real and well documented psychological effect.
The worst part is that, again, it has very minimal impact on most people. For many its not about losing the ability to purchase something like an ingame cosmetic, and they may not even see that as financially reasonable as it is. The problem is that it so very specifically preys on those who are vulnerable to the tactic, who are treated as whales (individuals who spend more than the average consumer, to make up for a lack of sales elsewhere) in the process.
Its an absolute shame how much this kind of practice is not only accepted, but even defended in the industry. There can literally be people bypassing anything from holiday gifts for loved ones to financial responsibilities such as paying their bills just to sell a few more ugly sweater model meshes and textures."
People are being mad about manipulative tactics being used to increase sales, because surprise surprise, people don't like when you take away from them the ability to choose what to buy whenever they want.
-
@WesCravenFan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285473#Comment_3285473
What exactly is "shady" about something done right out in the open? They announced their plans. There is no secret agenda here.
Replace "shady" with "manipulative"
Add to the mix the fact that these kind of tactics prey better on those with low impulse control and it's easy to see why people are not happy about bhvr joining the fomo train
-
Yeah, BHVR is trying all they have to artificially increase prices and sales
And some people are defending these choices smh 🤦🏻
-
@Irisora said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285105#Comment_3285105
Dude the people that are bothered by limited cosmetics is a very tiny portion of the playerbase that probably only lurk here on the forums wich is also another very small fraction of the playerbase.. you are all being very dramatic about something that is just a skin.. that you are NOT i repeat NOT forced to buy it and it just hang there for people that want and can pay for it.
It doesn't give any advantage in the game and there is nothing wrong with selling limited skins, its just a cosmetic thing.. If it bother you soo much and you can't pay for it maybe you should use the time you spend in the forums to work harder instead, if you really want those skins.
Be real Behaviour isn't doing anything wrong and in fact they are one of the very few game companies that refund the "battle pass" once you complete it.. many games don't do it at all.
@RyuH I'll steal your answer to another thread for this one, please take it as a compliment.
"I've been seeing a surprising number of posts defending this kind of practice, while not really grasping what is actually happening with it. FOMO causes an irrational shift in prioritization by directly manipulating the availability of a purchase. This shift is something that your average person is able to maintain a rational perspective regarding, such as "i don't need it that much" or "I can wait for another chance later." The people it is designed to affect, are those with any form of impaired impulse control, or poor budgeting skills. There have been notorious GDC lectures outlining very specifically how to take advantage of these people and try to get as much money as possible out of them, with FOMO being one of the key methods. It is a known business practice that very specifically targets a vulnerable demographic.
Lets say you are faced with this situation, and have other more important obligations and are unable to make the purchase. A typical mind will think "oh well" and go without, but an affected person will start trying to readjust their budget to make it work, they may borrow money or even forgo financial obligations altogether as the need to commit to the purchase or lose out on it entirely outweighs their otherwise rational budgeting and prioritization. Its actually part of gambling addictions as well, as "the next bet can be the win that offsets all my losses" even after going into debt. It is a very real and well documented psychological effect.
The worst part is that, again, it has very minimal impact on most people. For many its not about losing the ability to purchase something like an ingame cosmetic, and they may not even see that as financially reasonable as it is. The problem is that it so very specifically preys on those who are vulnerable to the tactic, who are treated as whales (individuals who spend more than the average consumer, to make up for a lack of sales elsewhere) in the process.
Its an absolute shame how much this kind of practice is not only accepted, but even defended in the industry. There can literally be people bypassing anything from holiday gifts for loved ones to financial responsibilities such as paying their bills just to sell a few more ugly sweater model meshes and textures."
There you go @Irisora, now you know why BHVR using FOMO is ######### up and why EVERYONE should complain about it instead of saying "Who cares? It doesn't affect me"
-
@Emeal said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285061#Comment_3285061
If you a HURT by Seasonal Cosmetics then show me the wound.
Yeah, you're most likely a troll. That's confirmed.
No way you take things THAT literally.
-
@SunaIIanu said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285197#Comment_3285197
I'll remind you in a year.
Please do.
I hope the "Bhvr can do whatever they want with their game" people will complain at that time, but you can't expect much from that kind of mentality
-
@UnknownKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285065#Comment_3285065
Not trying to defend the devil but they said it would release skins with aurics cell in batchs so right now the skin of Meg would be the only one shard priced in january becuz the others characters still not released.
What do you mean?
The new time-limited collection will be in the stores for more than 4 weeks, but it will not be available to buy with shards, when they said the exact opposite a couple of months ago
-
@Superbeasto1974 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285208#Comment_3285208
"In certain cases?" Which cases? And who makes that call?
Bars cut off drunks because of codes and laws, and because of the provable fact that alcohol poisoning will kill you. I'm still waiting to hear about the scores of people who've died because they missed out on a limited skin.
Noone's dying so it's fine, alright
Let me go sell fake pokemon cards to children. Noone's dying for them and it's not illegal, why are people suddenly mad at me?
-
@MisterMister said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285213#Comment_3285213
I don’t see how selling a holiday item during that specific holiday is an “artificial restraint” it’s a specific, necessary restraint. It makes those items specific for that timeframe. BHVR is being called greedy and the like because they want to sell those items during the specified holiday…..And? If people want the item they will have to pony up the dough to buy it, plain and simple. People don’t want to do that, and are upset why? Because they can’t afford it now? Because they’d rather wait until it becomes available to purchase with shard? Because they rather use whatever auric cells they’ve accumulated through rifts? Whatever the reason behind people not wanting to buy the items now is the justification I use for stating that people just want stuff for free. They don’t want to spend for it now, but they want it now. Hence “for free.”
Time-limiting an item for the sole sake of it being time limited is not an artificial constraint, ok dude, idk what to tell you anymore.
Keep defending anti-consumer tactics, I'm sure that'll work out fine for us, the consumers 👍🏻
-
1
Pretty sure you can't tell other people to "shut up about it" on the forums
2
Sorry if BHVR implemented an anti-consumer tactic for no good reason and the consumers are complaining
-
@MisterMister said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285192#Comment_3285192
How do you equate anti consumerism to cosmetic purchasing? Anti consumerism would be if they released a bug fix, but asked everyone to pay for the update. Cosmetics is just an accessory, that isn’t needed or required. Asking consumers to pay for something that just makes your character prettier isn’t anti consumerism. People just want to get free stuff for nothing.
Cosmetic purchasing becomes anti-consumer when you attach FOMO tactics to it.
Using an artificial constraint to artificially increase the price or the sales of a digital good is considered anti-consumer.
Noone was complaining when christmas skins were sold all year round for auric cells only. Stop saying that "people only want free stuff". People want to be treated fairly, and that's not happening here.
-
@Superbeasto1974 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285107#Comment_3285107
Blame and accountability are two completely different concepts. But per your comment, should we then blame bars for making alcoholics? Casinos for making gamblers? At what point does a business bear responsibility for the mental health of the consumer, and at what point does a consumer bear responsibility for their mental health?
Casinos in certain cases, yes
Respectable bars BAN alcoholics from their places to protect them and their clientele. Think about that.
-
@SunaIIanu said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285125#Comment_3285125
Yeah, I jinxed it.
Don't worry, I'll one-up you:
At least next year we'll be able to buy event skins that were already available with shards.
Now watch BHVR pull the rug under my feet on this one
-
@MisterMister said:
Out of curiosity, how do you expect the people that work on this game to earn a living? Cosmetics, and New Chapters, with the occasional rift. The DBD community DEMANDS new updates, bug fixes, and the like, do you believe that only takes 1 guy sitting in a cubicle? I’d imagine it takes teams of people working all the time to manage, and support a game that caters to hundreds of thousands of people on just about every continent of the earth. Those teams need to be paid. I’m sure they aren’t paid nearly enough, and I’m dumbfounded at how people can get so upset when they just want to be paid for their hard work. People aren’t paying for the game, then expected to pay for the basic skins. The cosmetics are game choices, not life choices, if you can’t afford it, don’t buy it, simple.
DBD is a paid game.
Every new DLC is a priced item.
Most of the skins are priced.
You have the option to buy battle pass tiers.
BHVR has ways of gaining money without using anti-consumer tactics. We are asking they DON'T USE ANTI-CONSUMER TACTICS SUCH AS THESE ONES.
-
@SpaghettiYOLO said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3283564#Comment_3283564
Nothing special... they're all literally holiday themed or winter themed wear. The PJs have always been released during the winter. The bundled up cosmetics weren't released in the middle of summer. The sweaters, Christmas themed cosmetics, holiday colored cosmetics were all released during the HOLIDAYS. You're not missing out on anything if you can't get them all this year. They will return DURING the holidays next year.
On a separate note, the only people I've run into wearing holiday stuff during spring/summer/fall have always went out of their way to try and troll or be toxic in a game. If you weren't buying these skins during those seasons before, why do you suddenly care now? And if you did buy some of these during those seasons before, how many times did you actually wear them? Enough to be this upset this? I highly doubt that.
I know I won't be able to buy every single one this year. And I don't care because I'll have the chance next year when I know I'd want to wear them.
Lol, take a look at Mime Feng and tell me that that skin screams HALLOWEEN
Or look at any "winter" skin that is simply a pajama, in some cases a pair of shorts and a t-shirt and tell me that has any right of being tied to an event
-
@JimboSanders said:
For those that don't know, all older Christmas themed cosmetics are becoming limited and will be leaving the store with the newly released ones once the time for them is up. This includes the Christmas sweaters.
I'm already dissapointed that they are continuing to do this, put applying this to older cosmetics the community has been able to buy for years? That's just a new low.
What's next? Blight skins becoming limited? Easter? Lunar New Year?
What's next? Blight skins becoming limited? Easter? Lunar New Year?
That's a given at this point.
What I'm assuming is that when seasonal skins will come back next year, they'll be available only for Auric Cells. Yes, even skins that you are able to buy today for shards.
God I hope I'm wrong, but BHVR is more apt at sucking hope out of me than the Entity
-
October/Early November: Halloween event
Late November/December: Christmas event
December/January: Winter event
February/March: Chinese New Year event
April/May: Easter
June/July: Anniversary event
August/September: Summer
Oh yeah baby, love my all year round time limited skins tied to "events" that will never go on sale
-
@SunaIIanu said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3283872#Comment_3283872
I'm not saying that things only being available at a certain time doesn't add to the charm of a specific celebration, I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense for dbd.
This is not the first seasonal collection they published and the others are always available, so it just seems weird to me that after years they would decide to change this system just for more "magic". The old Christmas skins for example are still available (not that I want to encourage the Devs to change that), so if players want to buy Christmas stuff in June this time limited collection will not stop them. Also, when you bought the skins you can use them whenever you want, so players will see off-season skins ingame anyway.
Like others already said, I'm sure it is purely a selling tactic and it feels scummy to me, so just like the Jane skin, I'm not going to buy it.
The old Christmas skins for example are still available (not that I want to encourage the Devs to change that), so if players want to buy Christmas stuff in June this time limited collection will not stop them
-
@Mandy said:
The whole purchase with Auric Cells when they come back is not something that we've stated - please do not spread misinformation on this platform.
Unless you confirm that when they return they'll be available for shards again, we're going to assume the worst.
Because you showed us that that's what you're gonna do.
So please, either confirm that they'll be available for shards, or start trying to convince the higher ups to make them available for shards next year if you don't want people to worry about it.
-
Not going to spend 1 more cent on DBD until they pull the brake on this 😊
-
Ehy oh look who's here again!
Not BHVR backtracking on the "Non licensed cosmetics that are in the store for more than 4 weeks will be available with shards"
Eeeeh, company policy change and that's fine right? Even if it's only what, a few months ago?
-
@Emeal said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3284761#Comment_3284761
I dont see why they cant change it up like that. So you think they are scummy cause they changed to pricing options?
what cosmetics was it again?
I think you are pretty fast on the scummy trigger.
Dude
WE are the consumers.
Anti-consumers tactics HURT us
Taking away something that was previously available IS an anti-consumer tactic.
Why on earth would you defend that, if you're not gaining anything out of it?