Forced scarcity and exclusivity.

Exclusivity: Because having the blue sword, which is nothing but binary data on a hard drive which you do not even own, makes you importanter than others in RL somehow. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Disc_Hunter

Because only an idiot believes that scarcity should ever be a determining factor for an achievement in a video game. If you can accomplish a feat, you deserve the reward. Period. No one cares who got there first. If you turn it into a race, then only no-lifers in their parents' basements can ever accomplish anything, which turns away gamers that are potentially even more skilled and talented, but only have limited time to play.

Imagine if, once X amount of teams cleared a fight, everyone else gets locked out from even being able to attempt it. That would be stupid. Therefore, forced scarcity and exclusivity is stupid. It's really not hard for a competent person to understand the concept.

---

I dunno, maybe I blur the lines and a I'm incompetent but when Lamborghini only makes 1000 of a special edition car I dont quit being a car enthusiast? I dont let it ruin my hobby? Same thing with rarity and exclusivity in game no? Both are hobbies, both are how you spent your free time and both should or could have limited items not for the masses, for those who put in above and beyond effort?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mistyregions

I dunno, maybe I blur the lines and a I'm incompetent but when Lamborghini only makes 1000 of a special edition car I dont quit being a car enthusiast? I dont let it ruin my hobby? Same thing with rarity and exclusivity in game no? Both are hobbies, both are how you spent your free time and both should or could have limited items not for the masses, for those who put in above and beyond effort?

---

however unless someone destroys those Lamborghini's you can dream of someday owning one if you ever get the resources.

If the item is good and makes the game more enjoyable for me, why do I care if someone else has it. This also comes from a person who did dynamis two times a week for 52 weeks 4 hours each run including prep, "No you can't come as a thf just because you got the TH knife you signed up as a brd we need brds." Was I happy when I got my rdm hat, hell yes. Was I any less happy four more people got one next run and four again week after, no I was happy they didn't have to suffer like me and we all had hats, I loved that hat.

Is this about the Garo/PvP mounts? Cause like you dont even have to be particularly good at PvP to get them, it just takes time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mistyregions

I dunno, maybe I blur the lines and a I'm incompetent but when Lamborghini only makes 1000 of a special edition car I dont quit being a car enthusiast? I dont let it ruin my hobby? Same thing with rarity and exclusivity in game no? Both are hobbies, both are how you spent your free time and both should or could have limited items not for the masses, for those who put in above and beyond effort?

---

I don't mind things being exclusive to those who do the content. But I don't see the point in this game for rare & exclusive items when competing with others for it. Cheating is rampant when SE has done that. There was a lot of win trading for those top pvp placements to get those rare and exclusive mounts. That was a huge thing that people who were vying for it legitimately were super mad about and rightfully so. I don't have a dog in that fight as I don't do pvp for that. But win trading is cheating so when I see those mounts I often wonder "Hmm... I wonder if that is one of the people who cheated and didn't really earn it." I don't think "Wow, that's so awesome they must be one of the best in pvp in this game." Which if you think about it is sad because maybe that person really is that good and didn't do the win trade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mistyregions

I agree with everything but the statement "resources are unlimited in game and the devs could have it if they wanted" because resources are limited. To create those resources cost money IRL, so they have to prioritize stuff and still balance high payoff rewards for dedicated people. Everyone forgets to implement something as simple as instanced housing could cost upwards of 100-200k to implement. That's a shit ton of money. InB4 they profited from SHB, yes they did, and that money gets diverted to diversify their product line, you cant perpetually invest in one product that's like business 101.

---

The resources to create the game come from the real world and they are limited, but you can't run out of items in game. Things like releasing a specific item to only 100 players are developer decisions and I don't really like them. I see no value in having something that other people don't and if the major motivation to play the game is the rewards then quality might start to decline. Creating items that the majority can never have sounds closer to forced exclusivity than the housing issue. I guess housing could have been added to the game differently, but we're passed that point now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Disc_Hunter

It's not about "ruining your hobby," but rather, intentionally making something scarce just so that it seems to be more valuable. At least in reality, you can make the excuse that there are literally limited resources, so it's a blurry line. But in a video game? It's a stupid concept. Why only reward the first X people who achieve something when you can reward everyone who achieves it? It literally takes more effort to make it exclusive than inclusive.

Going back to my other example, yes, it actually could ruin someone's "raiding" hobby, if they could never get into a raid because of it being "exclusive" to the first 1000 players that clear it. If they don't get there fast enough, there's no point. And if that's one of the main reasons they play the game, they may just stop playing the game period, which loses customers.

Ultimately though, if you can't figure out why it's bad game design to only reward some players who earn the reward, then you're just too clueless to discuss anything with in the first place.

---

I dunno there are handbags that limited runs, and we haven't ran out of leather to make them so unreal life their are unlimited resoruces for most exclusive things , and people would be willing to buy them but the company forces limited runs to up the value and force scarcity and exclusivity, yet that doesn't ruin the hand bag enthusiasts, similar with guns, cars, jewelry etc. To say I'm clueless when it this happens on a daily basis is a stretch. Also what's up with the attacking and talking down to someone tone? Lastly what your looking for is a participation award, I was asking why having a winners award was looked down on. If you go into the Olympics not everyone can win gold. Some rewards should be for those people who perform at that level in the game correct? In your debate you would like everyone to get a participations award for just doing the content, not being the best, or the fastest at it correct?

Someone else having the same items I do does not somehow devalue my item, no matter how I got it or when I got it compared to how and when they did. I dislike limited time exclusives that vanish if you did not do the thing quick enough. Instead I prefer rewards that are eventually available to all but were exclusive to a few for a period of time. Helps alleviate FOMO and keeps me motivated to stick around for the 'next time'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mistyregions

I dunno there are handbags that limited runs, and we haven't ran out of leather to make them so unreal life their are unlimited resoruces for most exclusive things , and people would be willing to buy them but the company forces limited runs to up the value and force scarcity and exclusivity, yet that doesn't ruin the hand bag enthusiasts, similar with guns, cars, jewelry etc. To say I'm clueless when it this happens on a daily basis is a stretch. Also what's up with the attacking and talking down to someone tone? Lastly what your looking for is a participation award, I was asking why having a winners award was looked down on. If you go into the Olympics not everyone can win gold. Some rewards should be for those people who perform at that level in the game correct? In your debate you would like everyone to get a participations award for just doing the content, not being the best, or the fastest at it correct?

---

These rewards exist already in the Ultimate raids. Why does it need to be limited to the people who get there the fastest or only the top 100 (arbitrary number). People who join two years from now may want to test themselves on those Ultimate raids. If they win but started playing the game "too late" then they didn't earn them? They still did the content and earned them and the bragging rights that goes along with it.