Shooting Stars wrote:Something I've never understood, is why it's such a huge problem for CS to have something exclusive and limited. Every game has something, whether it's kickstarter, beta, limited time purchase, limited amounts.
As an example: Roblox has Limited 'U's, there's a limited amount of an accessory/hat which are available and once all are bought, it's gone forever. You can resell them and purchase from others, but there will never be another original release. Some things are worth literal thousands of real currency, but I never see anybody whine about how unfair it is (excluding young children who don't understand and just want something cool).
Why is CS so different? I've asked this several times to no response. If somebody has a real answer, that's not "it's unfair/I want it/it's selfish/anything similar, then I'm more than happy to hear it.
But it was a promise that these pets would never be released. I've seen it's selfish and "elitist" to want this promise to be kept, or "it's fine to hurt a few players feelings so others can be happy." When real money is involved, I very darn well want the agreement that was sold along with what I bought to stay in place.
Chicken Smoothie isn't different, but I see why people can think that here. Hell, even I think it sometimes. But it does help to put into context that CS has under a thousand regular users nowadays, and it's frequent enough to recognize dozens of people in the forums if you're active. CS is a very, very small group and it's hard to not catch wind of even obscure opinions. Unlike other games, which usually have bigger playerbases and thus less and less of a chance to hear opinions.
I would say that "limited time purchases" in multiplayer games with economies almost always end up wrecking their economies. Gaia Online is the most extreme example of this, though exacerbated with terrible decisions. There are people who complain about this on Roblox, even more so because Roblox is a huge game with a huge playerbase of children under the age where they can make their own money.
I've said before that if Chicken Smoothie wants to be fair to the players who paid real money, what about those who pay many times of said real money amount to obtain such pet? What about the young kids who play this site, the demographic of which CS bases its rules around? Is it fair for them to be unable to buy pets that cost real money?
The argument of fairness is extremely difficult in this context I think, which is why it can create some intense feelings, even if it's over "a sparkledog collecting game" because in the end we pour hours and money into this game.
Tangent: In my opinion, limited-time things costing real money in some way (and virtual currency, but at least we can trade for it for free here) is predatory game design that capitalizes on FOMO. However, I do NOT mean for this to be an attack on the site nor Nick and Tess! I understand that they had to implement something I consider predatory in order to keep this site running. Semi-off-topic tangent end
I understand the frustration of both sides: people without access to high-demand, rare pets find it hard to get anything they want that's on the list, or requires them to trade and trade and not hold attachment to their pets just to get one dreamie. While the other side does not want all their hard work to go away on a whim, just because the site decided so.
But I want to say that an economy that focuses on those who want to continue the cycle of continuously grinding to get the same difficult-to-achieve stuff eventually stagnates, because who wants to give away their pet for the equivalent of what they traded it for? It becomes a cycle of overpay and overpay to create demand and eventually to create a "normal" value. It's not healthy for the site's longevity in the end because trading is a massive part of the game.
