Go Back   Star Trek Online > Information and Discussion > Star Trek Online General Discussion
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 21
05-31-2012, 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by V-Mink
I found that quote perplexing. This would explain why Cryptic was referred to that way.

Still a little depressing to see STO reduced to a psycho-economics experiment, though.



I'm not sure I agree with this. Granted, I have less data and more 'gut feeling' (the singular of 'data' is not 'anecdote!') but I think some clarification may be in order. The wealthy aren't frugal per se; they have more of a buffer, more flexible spending, so they do not find themselves living beyond their means. They can easilly afford to live within their means for the neccessitites and for recurring costs (taxes, insurance, fees, etc.) You most often find people living beyond their means who are (a) dirt poor and have to choose between eating and paying the rent, and (b) mid-to-upper middle class who are desperately trying to live a lifestyle they think they can (and should) live but really can't. Which probably maps to the very poor and the 'sociologically estranged groups' you mention. But this is a discussion for another time, I think!
I'm not saying wealthy people don't spend.

But there have been some studies showing that if you show different people the same item, remind them of their race and class, and ask them what they'll pay for it, poorer and more disenfranchised people will offer to pay more for the same item.

I'm sure both groups may go out for a nice steak dinner once in awhile. The difference is, poor people can be persuaded to pay more for the same steak.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 22 well said/posted
05-31-2012, 11:12 AM
As the post is designed to give an insight to the monetary cap (Gains), well said / posted.
If the lock boxes are more of a rare drop say >%5.0 then, having them in the D-Store makes sence.

Here is the hypothosis: Lock boxes at current availabilty does not encourage monetary spending to equal the model(s) designed outcome. The rarity increased and the consistancy of Lobi Crystals stabilized to a garunteed fixed amount combined with ONLY Pod Items exclusive to the Lock Boxes would encouage more balanced spending.

Ships have no place in lock boxes. Thier respective race specific Pod Items do. For instance, a D'Kora purchased from the C-Store has a garunteed fixed income. Having to get the race specific Pod Items from Lock Boxes ensures two things. 1 - Everyone who can easily access ships of Neutral Race Factions would want to aquire the "rare" Pod Items to complete the set. 2 - Lock Boxes on a much more rare drop rate would increase player retention because either : a) grind missions to aquire or b) grind Dilithium to purchase Lock Boxes from D-Sore.

A look at this in reverse: Player A purchases a Cardassian Galor Cruiser from C-Store. Now Player A wants specific consoles/bidge costumes for said purchase. Player A now has to "play" for it to obtain the Lock Boxes resulting in purchase Master Keys to use on Lock Boxes aquired. Player A now has an agenda that has less of a burn out of monetary contributions and less of a burn out playing the game because a "Real Opportunity" that is resonably obtained keeps Player A satisfied by a true balance of aquisition vs. play.

In closing, I sincerly hope Lock Boxes would go this way. It does not take away from the immersion we play games for. It does not take away from the Universe Star Trek is to all of us Trekies. It does provide a consistant stable monetary gain opportunity for Cryptic. The idea was born from the Lock Boxes availability in the D-Store. It is my understanding that a Limited Supply of "Licened Ships" is why they are in the lock boxes to control the amount sold to the public under agreement. A "Limited Supply Offer" in C-Store would have accomplished the same effect.

D.Stahl said " Lobi crystals will not be allowed to be traded since it is purchased with "real" monies. It goes againts the LUA to trade anything in game for "real" monies." Is that not what is happening all ready with C-Points? Weather it comes from a stipened or direct purchase, C-Points are purchased with "real" monies and yet are traded in game for Dilithium. I belive this to be hippocritical to say the least. Lobi crystals should be on the Dilithium exchange to bring balace to another in game currency we were told would not happen since the conversion to dilithium.

Just my thoughts, thanks for a great thread that generated real core discussion with no drama.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23
05-31-2012, 11:22 AM
Apologies - I only read the OP rather than the following 3 pages but I just wanted to throw in my observation/personal opinion.

I wouldn't classify myself as a "high roller" but then again I have spent money supporting the game. I bought a LTS. In addition I have spent about 150 on purchasing C-points/Zen for various things over the last 2 years. I didnt even mind the whole lockbox event with the ship grand prize. Sure I'd buy a few keys and open the one or 2 purple boxes I had plus maybe a handful of greens. I wouldn't get a ship (except for the Jemmy that I lucked out in a Veteran Red box).

Then I would go farm EC. Lorechips, Kerrat drops, fabricating consoles, selling colonists, farming neutronium. Even converting dil->c-points, buying keys and selling on AH. Then I can buy my Galor and my Dkora for EC. I overpaid for both (90mil for the Cardy and 99mil for the D'kora) but hey, if I was an ace at reading the markets I would be some hotshot commodities trader working for JPMorgan, rather than unemployed :p

Then they introduced the Lobi Store. With its stupidly expensive items. I wanted the ferengi set to go with my ferengi ship on my ferengi toon.. I am like that. but you cant get these with EC. I opened 100 boxes to get the missiles. I then realised that the mines were better. And I also realised that I had spend a months rent on opening those boxes.

So.
I am not going to spend a single penny more on the game. I will still play. I will still get my stipend. I will still transfer dil->c-points at increasingly stupid exchange rates.

But I will not spend another penny buying zen/cp for RL money.
I don't think the comment that Lobi keeps high rollers playing. Based on my experience I would have thought its the opposite effect due to the insanely high prices and stupid number of crystals in the boxes themselves...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 24
05-31-2012, 11:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviathan99
I'm not saying wealthy people don't spend.

But there have been some studies showing that if you show different people the same item, remind them of their race and class, and ask them what they'll pay for it, poorer and more disenfranchised people will offer to pay more for the same item.

I'm sure both groups may go out for a nice steak dinner once in awhile. The difference is, poor people can be persuaded to pay more for the same steak.
Interesting. I'll have to hunt down that study; thanks for the clarification!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 25
05-31-2012, 11:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by k4pt41nk4ng4r00
Source please.
There is none. He is taking a line from an annual report referring to an accounting/risk disclosure estimate and assuming it is a managerial policy, and then speculating further to try to explain it.

Unless he has some other source I haven't seen linked anywhere here... ?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 26
05-31-2012, 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviathan99
I'm not saying wealthy people don't spend.

But there have been some studies showing that if you show different people the same item, remind them of their race and class, and ask them what they'll pay for it, poorer and more disenfranchised people will offer to pay more for the same item.

I'm sure both groups may go out for a nice steak dinner once in awhile. The difference is, poor people can be persuaded to pay more for the same steak.
But is that because they will really spend more or because they simply don't have as good a basis for estimating the market value of the item?

And does estimating a higher price equate to actually spending the extra money? Especially when they are less able to afford it?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 27
05-31-2012, 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimmera
There is none. He is taking a line from an annual report referring to an accounting/risk disclosure estimate and assuming it is a managerial policy, and then speculating further to try to explain it.

Unless he has some other source I haven't seen linked anywhere here... ?
I'm not assuming it's a managerial policy here. I'm assuming it's an observed outcome.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 28
05-31-2012, 11:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimmera
But is that because they will really spend more or because they simply don't have as good a basis for estimating the market value of the item?

And does estimating a higher price equate to actually spending the extra money? Especially when they are less able to afford it?
Actually spend.

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/a...articleid=1963
Quote:
Poor blacks and poor whites both spend more on visible goods if they live in poor communities, because such spending gives them more status relative to others in the community. But poor blacks and poor whites living among wealthier people do not devote extra portions of income to visible expenditures, since they are too far behind to get more status from the extra spending they can afford. Moreover, the very fact of belonging to a particular group provides observers with information about one's likely income (e.g. blacks are on average poorer than whites).

A low-income white person in Alabama, for example, is likely to spend more on visible goods than a low-income white person in Massachusetts. That's because white people are generally poorer in Alabama; in wealthy Massachusetts, spending more on visible goods is a waste of money, since it does not boost one's status.

Blacks and whites appear to have different spending habits only because blacks tend to be concentrated in poor communities more than whites, Roussanov says. Nationally, the poor white is likely to be surrounded by many whites who are not as poor, so he or she cannot afford to use conspicuous consumption to compete for status. But a black person of the same income is more likely to be surrounded by others of similar income, making this competition feasible.

In all races, people of a given income become less and less likely to emphasize conspicuous consumption as they get farther and farther behind their neighbors financially. "The overall predominance of conspicuous consumption between blacks and whites is really not a black-white phenomenon; it is simply an artifact of the environment," Roussanov says. "Blacks are poorer in this country, and so are Hispanics."
Sad people spend more money on the same items, too:

http://financialhighway.com/sad-peop...nd-more-money/
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 29
05-31-2012, 11:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviathan99
I'm not assuming it's a managerial policy here. I'm assuming it's an observed outcome.
What is the source of information for this observed outcome?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 30
05-31-2012, 11:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviathan99
I'm not assuming it's a managerial policy here. I'm assuming it's an observed outcome.
You are observing the trends of young Chinese adults? Or you are just assuming that you have?

The only source of the 3 to 5 years is the line from the annual report. There is also a clause in there with respect to the risks from avian flu virus. Does that mean they are in full quarantine mode 'just in case?'
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:35 PM.