If I understand this correctly, you mean a Thriller emote isn't actually worth US$5, on the basis that it cost them nothing and is just a token for having donated some Bungie Tax? Stop me if I read that wrong.
The Thriller emote can actually hold a US$5 real-world value for someone.
What something costs to create or reproduce has absolutely no bearing on its value. Value is inherently and irrevocably subjective - nothing in the world, not gold and not cash and not bonds - nothing has any "worth" beyond whatever people's demand for it is.
In the context of this discussion about microtransactions I totally get what you are saying here. First off, for the purposes of this response just bear in mind that I know you know this stuff, and I'm trying to unpack a complex idea for anyone who doesn't get what I was driving at, rather than attempting to educate you personally on the subject (I'm sure I would fail at doing so anyway).
If we're looking at it broadly, value is not a simplistic concept with a single clean definition, but rather an almost ubiquitous economic and philosophical notion subject to enormous debate and entailment. Consider the difference between economic value and market value, let alone market
price; consider utility (many times called "use value") versus value in exchange, or either one versus the notion of ethical value or "goodness." This makes for a versatile word in English... consider how the entire sense of the word can be quite different in phrases such as "a good value" (nominally equivalent to "a bargain") and "cultural values" (prescriptions about what is important or significant to a societal group).
Competing theories in economics often view the problem differently because of the implications as to how a market should run, but all of these theories are important. The relevant denotations of value here are:
- Intrinsic value, which is value actually inherent in a good or service itself, and something that absolutely does exist in some cases
- This frequently entails labor value, a consideration of the socially required labor to produce a good or service (related to my mention of the amount of effort required by Bungie to produce any given thing)
Note that we're not talking at all about
pricing yet, as these notions of value exist without it. Consider as an example two sets of the same types of drill bits, one basic carbon steel and the other cobalt steel. There is a a simple and demonstrable difference in quality- both from the perspective of the effort and materials used in production (labor) and the actual functionality provided by each (utility). This is steeped not in the marketplace but a philosophical consideration of observable reality: that some items produced are just objectively better than other similar items, discounting altogether ideas like personal preference, desire, convenience, sentiment, and so on.
While intrinsic value is often completely absent from the equation when analyzing an exchange of goods, it isn't a wholly made-up notion either. Obviously, emotes do not have this type of value in any sense, and what you're referring to when you say "nothing in the world...has any 'worth'" outside of demand, you're of course referring to:
- Subjective value, derived from the importance an acting buyer places upon a good or service's ability to meet their particular need or want. When someone describes something as being "priced at what the market will bear," they are of course invoking subjective value.
- In particular for this case I'd specifically call out the idea of sentimental value, wherein only the buyer's personal feelings are driving perceived monetary worth. This is where you end up with $100 Blacksmith shaders et al.
In purchasing cosmetic DLC you're tacitly agreeing with Bungie's newfound philosophy, granted. But this doesn't change the fact that they're offering value to customers who, absent coercion or misinformation, are voluntarily making a decision to trade (cash for emotes).
My point then, is that the bold is
not actually the exchange taking place.
Rather than "ca$h4emotes" it's cash for Silver -> Silver "for" emotes, but the emotes as already addressed aren't "worth" Silver.
I can understand how this must seem like an arbitrary distinction, but there are a number of implicit factors that are incredibly important from a business sense, and these are why I was trying to get people to reconceptualize purchasing Silver as a contribution in support of Bungie that also yields access to token rewards, rather than the simple voluntary trade you imply above. For starters, consider the notion of a 600 Silver emote... a superficial look at the pricing might have one thinking that such an emote "costs" $6.00USD. But if you have no Silver, what must you spend at minimum to purchase this emote? $10, of course. If you want the emote, you pay that money whether or not the additional 400-500 Silver has any bearing on your desire. This is simple pricing psychology, but feeds right into the concept I'm discussing here- that spending money on Silver is best considered monetary approval of Bungie's actions and
not a pedestrian exchange of goods. I invented the silly notion of the Bungie Tax to make this simpler to consider from a consumer standpoint; it is inadequate to describe this scenario with the adage of "you get what you pay for." This isn't unique to Destiny of course but true of any game that employs a virtual currency purchased with real money. It also bears mentioning that, of course, neither Silver nor anything purchased with it have any
resale value, something that is untrue of the actual game disc of Destiny I originally purchased, even to this day.
I want to be clear that I'm not undermining or attempting to discredit the practice Bungie is employing, at all. The reasons Eververse is a good idea for Bungie are as obvious to me as they are to you. I'm just trying to help people, especially those in the hardcore bracket, contextualize their purchases in light of the full developmental scope of the game.
to not sell stuff people wanna give you money for is dumb and irresponsible towards your shareholders.
While I don't think I disagree with you on this point, it does bear mentioning that Bungie is not a publicly traded company. The buyers of the "stuff people wanna give you money for" are not the beneficiaries of the profits.
I do think a rational case could be made that it isn't
necessarily irresponsible not to sell emotes for real money (even though people
will pay for them), at least in a vacuum. One could argue that if Bungie were to deliver emotes regularly to the playerbase for free, it might boost activity levels and drive longer-term purchasing, at the obvious expense of short-term recurring revenue.
So you're completely correct in saying they won't stop so long as people buy it. But I'd like to point out that they are indeed offering an enticing value proposition, else they wouldn't be making money with this.
I think what I am getting at is that the value proposition you're referencing here is actually tangential to my point. As you have noted on many occasions, Bungie would be well within their rights and actions as an economic agent to price an emote at the equivalent of $1000 were they to believe the market would sustain such a price. That's not what I'm talking about.
The thrust of my argument is here: if you both spend money on Silver and complain about the direction the game is heading- of the two, the Silver is what will resonate more with Bungie and steer their development course. The
money you spend outweighs the amount, accuracy, or prominence of your complaints. That may not be karmically satisfying whatsover, but it is the reality of the situation.
In reading over my posts I can see that it would be easy to disingenuously boil my point down to "if you're buying Silver then you have no right to complain," but that's not it at all. I just think it's really important to contextualize the notion of "buying an emote" and why it seems like Bungie may be so stubbornly and vexingly refusing to change course.