Dear Daybreak

I, and probably most others siding with Daybreak on the chocolate coin deal, actually agree with you on P2W critique. I actually play EQ1 more because EQ2 is so heavy on P2W. I hate how EQ2 puts up Level, Ascension, Tradeskill Boosts, and buyable spell upgrades. Those are clear examples of selling game advantages. That, to me, is beyond the pale.

However, a house deed and three mercenary skins are definitely cosmetic ("fluff") so I don't see how you could say it's P2W unless YOUR desire is leading you to some sort of cognitive dissonance - blurring of the lines if you will.

Edit: I also disagree with the ultra rare mercs and familiars as they are selling power or bordering on selling power. But the Holiday house deed and 3 mercs (equivalent to in power to expac/common crate mercs)? Yeah, it's more fair than the norm.

So it seems like lots of people are using the chocolate coins transaction to vent about the P2W aspects of the game. I hate P2W as much as the next player. $100s to upgrade a single spell from Apprentice to Ancient/Celestial? Really? (That's why I have more time on EQ1). However, a house deed and 3 cosmetic merc skins are merely fluff and not power aspects of the game so you're only getting "ripped off" if your desire is not fulfilled and you're not content.

I've never stated the chocolate coins, or the LoN lotto debacle are pay to win.

I said that it's a poor choice for monetization because it engenders ill will with the general customer base in a manner similar to the assorted pay to win mechanics that are all but required. It's viewed as a greedy money grab.

No cognitive dissonance or line blurring required or present.

Otherwise, I agree with the assessment.

To be clear, you are saying selling prestigious cosmetics is a "greedy money grab." Selling cosmetics is not a new, exploitative model. (P2W and Loot Boxes are more suspect). The chocolate coin offering seems relatively tame in terms of directness of price and lack of power advantage. If Marzapan Seasoningbringer has some ultra rare merc advantage (which she doesn't), you'd have an argument. You should be complaining more about the "Dragonrider Hero" and "Rancorous Slayer" bundles or Collector/Premium Expac Editions....

There are probably dozens - if not, hundreds - of free, game-earnable Frostfell items ranging from armor to weapon ornaments to house pets and petamorph wands. I think the Petamorph Wand: Crispy Ninjabread is new and free but random for Frostfell 2018?

So I am not sure how adding a higher-tier of house and merc Frostfell skins are remotely similar to P2W or any real money grab (e.g. must buy special merchant to complete timeline)? Simply don't buy it. See my earlier posts that spoke about $100 and $200 armor ornament suits sold on EQ1 which no one cared for.

Link to thread about EQ1's $100 and $200 armor ornaments: https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq...ge-and-200-for-golden-armor-ornaments.231483/

No, what she's saying is that wrapping the cost up in stupid bundles in order to try and hide the astronomical cost of these cosmetic things is a 'greedy money grab' Just list the darn house plainly at $50 and let people decide for themselves how stupid they'd like to be with their money.

You will note, if you have read my posts, that I have spoken in general terms regarding the sentiment I have personally witnessed.

To be clear: I stated that in my opinion, the way the chocolate coins have been implemented is a poor choice due to the general sentiment surrounding their previous (also poor) monetization choices. I DID NOT say that the chocolate coins are pay to win, or similar to pay to win. And if you repeat that a third time, it still won't be true.

I said the ill will it has created is similar.

A better implementation would have been to just offer the bundles and house, mercs, etc. for the equivalent DBC, though I think a 5000 DBC (50$) price tag for a house would have been a bit of sticker shock. But buying bundles for coins lessens it. You get the gist.

I also said, if you read my post, that customers should, or should not, spend their money on whatever they think gives them adequate value.

As customers, they should feel free to speak up about what is not satisfactory, as well as what is. It is DBG's ONE JOB to provide an experience a customer wants to pay for. Part of that is listening to feedback, both good and bad.

They are assuming people don't know how to use rudimentary reading, math, and logic....

I mean if you know you need 10 coins for the house deed, I am pretty sure you need to (1) read and (2) do your math to find out how to get those 10 coins....

You are subtlety conflating the two (P2W to cosmetics) to push your agenda:" it engenders ill will with the general customer base in a manner similar to the assorted pay to win mechanics" in Post #43.

You are assuming people don't know how to do math...

I mean if you know you need 10 coins for the house deed, I am pretty sure you need to (1) read and (2) do your math to find out how to get those 10 coins....

There is no deceptive marketing, only an imbecile would over-purchase (people are thrifty by nature).

That said. Yes, Daybreak could have offered to straight up sell these items for their equivalent DBC but, if you see it another way, they may have considered those bundles (or Holiday goodies) as bonuses.

I'm going cut to the chase. I think a lot of people are using "feel good", ambiguous arguments to mask their desire for cheaper house deed and merc skins. Yeah, don't buy it. Few, if any, bought EQ1's $100 or $200 armor ornaments....

*citation needed

I don't have an agenda, no matter how much you assert it, it doesn't make it true. Nice strawman for you to fight against, though. Until you stop trying to put words in my mouth, and insinuate meaning that isn't there, this conversation is over.


Have a good day.

Funny that you are dwelling on points that don't tackle the merits of the issue (e.g. simply calling chocolate coins bad marketing/greedy money grab - almost on par with P2W vs. cosmetics micro-transaction model, magnitude of in-game earnable Frostfell items). I wasn't into responding to nebulous, "feel good" arguments. Please take your nanny-state logic to your local township. Good day.

And, yes, EQ1 survived the $200 and $100 armor ornament suits. EQ2 will surely weather the $50 house deed....

Sadly some people really don't. And that is exactly what companies like DBG rely on when they pull these stunts.

Since many governments (including our own) have, or are in the process of, cracking down on predatory practices like Loot Crates, I suspect these 'bundle' type sales for alternate currency might become more prevalent.

Unfortunately, stuff like this is entrenched in the industry now, and isn't likely to go away entirely. Especially when there are folks like me who are willing to spend hundreds to thousands of dollars per year on 'fluff' bits that I want.

However, that doesn't mean folks shouldn't speak up if they're unhappy about what they're getting from their game, or how things are implemented.

Caveat emptor.

Obviously, the chocolate coin transaction is a much more simple calculation than other life transactions (bank loans). Do we need to impose nanny-state rules or hold people's hands? Even Daybreak's subscription pricing system is arguably more "predatory" (automatic renewal & cancellation, bulk billing periods, Silver status, Kronos). Where's the outrage for all of the "confusing" (maybe, even "deceptive") subscription options?

So yes, unzipping the patcher on your PC and punching in your credit card displays a certain level of cognitive ability. But, I must say EQ2's complexity already weeds out people with low cognition (they probably go to simple EQ1). I mean, if you know how to use mercs and prestige housing, you should already be a little clever.

Heads up on the chocolate coins, everybody!

They sit in the currency window of the character that made the SC purchase (I bought server transfers off IoR) but those chocolate coins DO NOT show up account-wide across servers like Loyalty tokens do!

Fortunately, I checked this beforehand. Make sure you know which character on what server is going to use the chocolate coins. I moved the chocolate coins into the shared bank to make sure I could-- yes, that worked. So if you want the chocolate coins to stay behind on your main server while you move an alt to another server, for example, then move the coins into the shared bank before you go.

er, people have emotions that interfere with them using rudimentary reading, math, and logic all the time

$14.99 is not really different than $15.00 but ...

Correct. If anyone doubts, reference any behavioral economics textbook. (PM me and I can link you to good sources, including two nobel prize in economics winners).

The purpose of structuring the cost of the house the way it has been done to obfuscate the price and incentivize more sales than they would have had otherwise.

So, there are four likely seperating equilibriums here:

Group #1: wants the house, is ok with the price, and doesn't care how the offer is structured.

Group #2: Pays $50 for a house indirectly when they wouldn't buy it otherwise.

Group #3: Doesn't buy, and is insulted that DBG thinks they are idiots.

Group #4: Doesn't care, doesn't buy.

Personally, I tend to believe monetizing holiday events this way are in poor taste. It would be nice, I feel, to keep these fun little holiday events free of cash grabs. Just my opinion though.

As far as loot boxes are concerned, they are all over the industry, and at the very least, they should be required by law to disclose the odds of winning. Preferable to me though, is they simply disappear alltogether.

Im with Charlie Brown, Christmas (and the end of the year holidays) is too materialistic (and commercialized). so its all rootnuggets as far as im concerned!

Players are purchasing DBC in increments of $5 ($5, $10, $20, $25, etc) and even saving $5 by the $45 tier so the increments themselves preclude any sort of ability to manipulate by cents. Even more clearly defined, the chocolate coins are displayed as whole numbers and not fractions/decimals.

Please cite your behavior economics references. Please don't just blurt out Daniel Kahnemann, Malcolm Gladwell, or Alan Greenspan. I'd like to see the passage. It is not against forum rules.

I am not sure how the price is obfuscated when the DBC prices are clearly displayed as definite numbers and the amount of chocolate coins in the bundle is given. Furthermore, the amount of chocolate coins rewarded is not randomly generated. (Players were concerned that number of chocolate coins would be based on a random number generator which would be a clear form of obfuscation).