billy the squid wrote...
Strict31 wrote...
I think it's a bad business model.
Sure, people can spend their own money however they goddamn feel like it. Sure. But every time somebody drops actual money on this crap shoot, it tells BW/EA that maybe, just maybe there's something to this sh*tty method of making money. Bioware is testing this method out, and we are the test sample.
So...I mean, if you wanted to use your money to buy a diseased hooker from space, that's all on you. But this is gonna inform BW's decisions for microtransaction models going forward. Whether it's this game, or new games down the line. Which means, however you spend your money (or don't) has an impact beyond you.
Of course, that's just my opinion on the matter. But I just don't think a company should be rewarded for giving the customer nothing for something. Because a random chance to get an item you want (or an item you don't want or even need) is not the same as getting the item you want.
It's called gambling. As far as business models go it's not a bad one.
I've seen folks try to make this comparison before. But it's actually not gambling.
Gambling is a pastime unto itself. It has a lure beyond the mere potential rewards it offers. It has an innate thrill attached to it; the thrill of knowing the odds may be against you, but the rewards are extreme. And as such, people are willing to spend for that thrill. They know the odds are against their winning. In other words, there is no product being offered in exchange for your money. No good, no service rendered. And there is no reasonable expectation of such.
It is an incorrect analogy.
This is going to a grocery store with the intent of buying, say toilet paper. But when you get to the store, you pay your money and randomy get graham crackers. Or dishwashing liquid. Or a bag of mixed nuts. Or a furnace filter. Any of which might be great if you didn't need a roll of ass-wipe at that moment.
Or perhaps going to the iTunes store to purchase that DOOM song you just heard. Then, spending your money only to find you got a garbage-ass Chief Keef track. Or some Gucci Mane. It's not the product you wanted. It's not even close. But hey, you just spent your money for it, so you'd best learn to like whatever it is they crapped into your iPod.
I can only speculate since I don't know the mind of every human on this planet. But I'd guess most consumers wouldn't be too pleased with such a transaction.
In my opinion, it breaks faith with the consumer. In normal transactions, even digital ones with digital goods/services, you have a reasonable expectation to get the product you want for the money the producer wants from you. If the producers fails to provide you that product after you've spent your money, it is reasonable to take your business elsewhere in the future. And unlesss that producer can find a customer base that is wholly satisfied with getting a random chance instead of a good, their profits will suffer. Ideally, they'll adapt a more mutually beneficial transactional model.
Or they'll fail. Because, if people can't get a roll of ass-wipe when they need it from one store, they'll go to where they can get it.