And the last bastion of non-Mog Station items gets put on Mog Station

[Alleo]

What, exactly, are they allowed to charge for, in your view? If they changed the game to a free-to-play model, would you be OK with charging for this kind of thing? Or is there some other criteria which decides what they can and can't charge for?

The same amount they charge for it outside the game for a digital download version? Which is kinda half the price then what we got for the mog station which is bad since you can hear them even less then outside.

[Talraen]

The same amount they charge for it outside the game for a digital download version? Which is kinda half the price then what we got for the mog station which is bad since you can hear them even less then outside.

If it's not worth it, don't buy it. I have no issue with people not buying things. I only take issue with making it a moral crisis for Square Enix to sell them.

[Vhailor]

They are reinvesting into the game, the fact that the team size has doubled and that they are still searching for more ppl it does shows that they are investing big into the game.
If they were just giving yoshida dimes we wouldn't be the game with one of the biggest team size in the sector

Also let us stop pretending that throwing money to something equates directly to a better product it's simply not true and has been shown countless of times alreadt. You can't buy talent a much as we'd like otherwise

Of course you can; it's how the world works. The reason why money does not always equate directly to a better product is that people spend it foolishly and assess talent improperly. It's always a prerequisite, however, particularly when you're trying to maintain success rather than create it in the first place.

The team size has doubled? Source please.

I second this.

If it's not worth it, don't buy it. I have no issue with people not buying things. I only take issue with making it a moral crisis for Square Enix to sell them.

I don't get the impression anyone's making these things out to be a 'moral' crisis. I'd also argue that consumers are absolutely within their rights, and indeed obligated, to throw companies under the bus when they demonstrate incompetence or engage in deceptive practices. SE charging half as much for a more flexible and higher-quality MP3 vs. a Mog Station purchase is absolutely, without question, a demonstration of incompetence at best, and a deceptive practice at worst. Why is it they shouldn't face criticism for it? Wouldn't you criticize a construction company that charged you twice as much relative to another customer across town, simply because you live in a different zip code?

It's important to keep in mind that the 'not worth it, don't buy it' approach doesn't effectively guide corporate behaviour in a capitalistic marketplace if goods and their prices aren't easily compared with one another. Like in the construction example I offered above, it's often quite difficult to tell what the crew typically charges for a given piece of work, and it's not even all that easy to find out what competing crews charge: you have to dig around. This makes it relatively easy for a consumer to be over-charged, whether by design or by accident. It's very much worthy of criticism.

[Talraen]

I don't get the impression anyone's making these things out to be a 'moral' crisis. I'd also argue that consumers are absolutely within their rights, and indeed obligated, to throw companies under the bus when they demonstrate incompetence or engage in deceptive practices. SE charging half as much for a more flexible and higher-quality MP3 vs. a Mog Station purchase is absolutely, without question, a demonstration of incompetence at best, and a deceptive practice at worst.

Two things. First, it's not unequivocally deceptive or incompetent. One could make the argument that the orchestrion roll is a much better value than the mp3 when the person in charge of the playlist in FC housing buys it and shares it with a few dozen FC members, something which they can't do (legally) with the mp3.

But second, it doesn't matter if this was a strictly inferior product. Who are you to decide how much Square Enix can charge for it? Why do you conclude that the orchestrion roll is overpriced, rather than the mp3 being underpriced? Are we talking in terms of maximum profit for Square Enix here? What's your criteria? It seems to me that the people who are upset about this are arguing from a standpoint that this is somehow "wrong," which is why I said they were "making it a moral crisis." I initially chimed in to counter the argument that a cash shop shouldn't exist in a game with a subscription, for instance. We're talking about entirely optional luxury items. The market can handle this. I'm glad people have pointed out that there is a cheaper alternative, and I hope people take advantage of that. But trying to induce artificial market forces on the pricing of luxury items is likely going to lead to more exploitative models (see: free-to-play games).

[Vhailor]

Two things. First, it's not unequivocally deceptive or incompetent. One could make the argument that the orchestrion roll is a much better value than the mp3 when the person in charge of the playlist in FC housing buys it and shares it with a few dozen FC members, something which they can't do (legally) with the mp3.

Fair point - and one I'll admit to overlooking.

But second, it doesn't matter if this was a strictly inferior product. Who are you to decide how much Square Enix can charge for it?

A consumer. One who is free to exert their opinion not simply with their wallet, but with their voice. Perhaps I'm someone who resents the cash store in its entirety (I do); perhaps I'm someone who wants to purchase more optional items, but can't afford them at the current price point; perhaps I'm a teenager who REALLY wanted that Orchestrion Roll, but whose parents drew a line at $3. Each of these views might oppose the current pricing for some reason or another. Some might even purchase the product despite this opposition. And all have the right to voice complaints about the price point and offering, in addition to the monetary vote they cast with their wallet.

[Talraen]

A consumer. One who is free to exert their opinion not simply with their wallet, but with their voice. Perhaps I'm someone who resents the cash store in its entirety (I do); perhaps I'm someone who wants to purchase more optional items, but can't afford them at the current price point; perhaps I'm a teenager who REALLY wanted that Orchestrion Roll, but whose parents drew a line at $3. Each of these views might oppose the current pricing for some reason or another. Some might even purchase the product despite this opposition. And all have the right to voice complaints about the price point and offering, in addition to the monetary vote they cast with their wallet.

I don't have any issue with people taking issue with the price. I only take issue with the tone and the presumption. Just because I can't afford something doesn't mean that it should be cheaper, and I never hear that kind of language outside of video games. My point wasn't that you're not allowed to criticize the price, it's that you're trying to decide what the price should be. Do you take the same issue with the pricing of Bayer vs. generic aspirin?

The thing about all the example arguments you made is that all of them are decided by the market regardless of the feedback. (Well, aside from buying it under protest, but honestly I think the purchase is more honest than the feedback there.) If enough people resent the cash store enough not to buy an item, or enough people can't afford it, Square Enix will make less money off of it. If they overcharge, they suffer for it (likewise if they undercharge). To my mind, the "correct" price is whatever maximizes their revenue, and I've seen no convincing arguments why that price for these orchestrion rolls isn't $5. I mean, I seriously doubt it is $5, but I don't have access to any more data than you do. Despite the constant protestations on the forums, the Mog Station has gotten more products at a higher price as time has gone on. To me that makes it pretty clear that people are buying.

I propose that the correct price is whatever price leads to the greatest revenue (i.e., sales * price) for Square Enix. Do you agree, and if not, by what methodology would you determine the correct price?

[Alleo]

I don't have any issue with people taking issue with the price. I only take issue with the tone and the presumption. Just because I can't afford something doesn't mean that it should be cheaper, and I never hear that kind of language outside of video games. My point wasn't that you're not allowed to criticize the price, it's that you're trying to decide what the price should be. Do you take the same issue with the pricing of Bayer vs. generic aspirin?

This kinda makes it sound like those that complain about it cant afford it? I believe that most of us could buy them. But its just bad that they want double the amount that the same song costs outside the game. People have to pay double the price while its only single character and can only be listened to when you are in a house in the game. Yes theoretically others can listen to this too but you can also just copy your disk in real life or let friends listen to it too.

We all know that as a business, SE will take it as far as they could. Sadly with digital goods that dont cost them anything next to the initial cost, you need only a small percentage of the playerbase to make it profitable. So we might not change much because they only need a few people but we still can complain about it. If we dont, they will truly believe we are fine with that.

In the end those that complain are mostly concerned for the future and about this game. First this shop was only for old events and account stuff and yet over time more exclusive things have been put into this. Now even music and items that could have easily been crafted ingame. Honestly its quite telling when you see new datamined items and people are often saying that this just might land in the cash shop. Who knows how far they will go, and maybe even those that dislike it will have their line crossed somewhere.

[Remedi]

Of course you can; it's how the world works. The reason why money does not always equate directly to a better product is that people spend it foolishly and assess talent improperly. It's always a prerequisite, however, particularly when you're trying to maintain success rather than create it in the first place.

Which is why I said that showering something in money doesn't mean it's a good product if ppl spend money poorly, yet ppl insist that the reason that something aren't good here in their opinion is because this game doesn't get enough money and it's just getting money for other SE products, which is not true.

Want a source?

https://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/comme...ges_over_time/

The numbers of the first appearing names after 2.0 should be interesting btw

Pester this guy if you want, he uses several infos that were shown at fanfest and has good stock on infos on the game as a collection of various interwiews and things said by the dev team and plenty of sources.

Since we are at it:

On cash shop stuff
https://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/comme...wow_and_other/

[Istaru]

Want a source?

https://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/comme...ges_over_time/

The numbers of the first appearing names after 2.0 should be interesting btw

Pester this guy if you want, he uses several infos that were shown at fanfest and has good stock on infos on the game as a collection of various interwiews and things said by the dev team and plenty of sources.

You mean this part??

The FFXIV has changed greatly over time with new people being hired continuously. While the largest the FFXIV Main Development Staff has been at any single time was around 300 people, roughly 590 unique names in total appear in the credits across all patches.

Patch credits Names appearing for first time
1.0 239
1.23 45
2.0 145
2.55 72
3.0 3
3.56 88
4.0 --

I’m not sure how looking at this tells you the dev team doubled in size since 2.0 especially when the earlier table shows the dev team is fairly steady in size.

[Vhailor]

Which is why I said that showering something in money doesn't mean it's a good product if ppl spend money poorly, yet ppl insist that the reason that something aren't good here in their opinion is because this game doesn't get enough money and it's just getting money for other SE products, which is not true.

Want a source?

https://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/comme...ges_over_time/

The numbers of the first appearing names after 2.0 should be interesting btw

Pester this guy if you want, he uses several infos that were shown at fanfest and has good stock on infos on the game as a collection of various interwiews and things said by the dev team and plenty of sources.

I feel like this shows the opposite of what you were saying, or am I missing something?

Based on the overall numbers, it shows that FFXIV's development team has remained consistently around 275 since 2.0. This, despite the introduction and expansion of the cash shop, and the supposed growth of FFXIV's subscriber base. In short, the game is making more money than ever, and yet it's supporting a team that's has remained almost exactly the same size, plus or minus 5 or so people, since post-2.0 development days. While it looks as if the team's roughly in-line with other MMOs, it should be noted that the only really comparable title on the list provided is WoW: all of the others are F2P, and supported by microtransactions. World of Warcraft isn't all that comparable either, because it's an extremely mature product at this stage, making it likely that the 250 or so working on it at any given point in time can get a lot more done than an equivalently-sized team can on FFXIV, which is still saddled by technical debt dating back to the initial 1.0 development.

So how is this supporting the conclusion that FFXIV's profits are being properly reinvested into its further development?

I don't have any issue with people taking issue with the price. I only take issue with the tone and the presumption. Just because I can't afford something doesn't mean that it should be cheaper, and I never hear that kind of language outside of video games. My point wasn't that you're not allowed to criticize the price, it's that you're trying to decide what the price should be. Do you take the same issue with the pricing of Bayer vs. generic aspirin?

Firstly, speaking personally, I'm not trying to decide what the price should be: but I do have an internal sense of what a reasonable price is. So does everyone else; it's part of how we make purchasing decisions. Were I not opposed to the cash shop in principle, the price for me would be about equivalent to what other, similar music is priced at on a site like Amazon (around $2.50, tops). Above that, I wouldn't bother: I don't view SE's music to be inherently worth more than a song from any other musician. Everyone's got their own feelings. In my mind, this discussion is primarily arising because some people's internal pricing sense differs from where SE set the price. I fail to see what's 'wrong' with this sort of discussion; haven't you ever complained about a 20c rise in the price of gas week to week, despite purchasing it anyway?

Secondly, the generic vs. Bayer example is an interesting one. People complain about medical costs all the time: it plays a key role in virtually every election over the past decade, at least in the US. There's a strong sense amongst the US population that medicine is unfairly priced, and that generics in particular should be more widely available. Hell, there are laws that were enacted precisely to stop people from acting on this sense and sourcing their drugs from Canada! I suspect in other countries this isn't so much the case, since the US is a particularly egregious backwater in terms of its medical industry (at least among developed nations), but the point remains. And speaking personally, yes: I think medical care, and drugs, are very much over-priced, as a general rule, particularly the non-generic options.

I propose that the correct price is whatever price leads to the greatest revenue (i.e., sales * price) for Square Enix. Do you agree, and if not, by what methodology would you determine the correct price?

I do not agree.

Firstly, from a B-school perspective, your proposal its poorly-defined: there's no good way of defining 'greatest revenue'. The sales * price model doesn't cut it. SE is a large company that has existed for decades, and presumably hopes to continue to exist for decades. It has multiple lines of business, including MMOs, single-player titles, titles it publishes but doesn't develop, etc. It's got a whole ecosystem. And the thing about ecosystems is that the goal is rarely to maximize profits on one single component of them: it's to maximize profit across the entire thing, across some arbitrarily long period of time. High prices might maximize SE's revenue on the Mog Station, but there's almost certainly a cost to other parts of SE's ecosystem arising from consumers feeling exploited. As a case in point, SE's micro-charging habits in FFXIV have irritated me enough that I don't purchase DLC for any titles they publish, such as Tomb Raider and Deus Ex. Their timed Xbox exclusive with Rise of the Tomb Raider similarly pissed me off, leading me to purchase the title on sale, and reinforcing my perspective that the company over-charges. I'd now consider myself well outside of the SE ecosystem: I used to purchase tons of titles, and five years ago, I'd have almost-literally drooled at the thought of a FF7 remaster. Now, I don't even get excited by it, because as soon as I saw it was being split into three parts, I thought "money grab" and dismissed it from my mind. What SE did to try to maximize their revenue over the past five years is having a ripple effect.

Now, as to my own methodology? Hard to say. This is a complicated area, and it's usually difficult to find a right answer. What I would say, though, is that a company should generally aim at the consumer, rather than at their bottom line. That'll guide them in the right direction. And it doesn't feel to me that SE is saying 'how much can we offer to the consumer for $5', it feels as if they're saying 'how high a price point can this Orchestion Roll support'. Part of that is a marketing problem; part of it is a transparency problem; and, yes, part of it is a price problem. When I look at things like a 5-pack of Fantasias costing base $45, I can't help but get the sense that SE is trying to exploit its consumers. Clearly, based on this thread, and multiple others, I'm not alone. That means SE needs to figure out how to lower the prices, but likely other things, too: how to be more transparent about where the money's going, how to be transparent about what sort of benefit there is for players, how to communicate that things like the Mog Station - and its $5 Orchestion Roll prices - are delivering value to the consumer.

Edit / Addition:

We all know that as a business, SE will take it as far as they could.

This is a perfect case in point. If the general opinion on the street is that you'll milk people for all they're worth, then your long-term viability as a company is at risk, particularly if your primary goods involve entertainment. SE would be in a far better position if what 'we all know' is that they release tons of great stuff and price very reasonably for it.