Limited Items Do Not Equal Limited Expression
by tdarb, as a special guest contribution to HSM
In the course of Home events, there are a few themes that come up over and over. One of the main ones is this idea of “exclusive” items. Some people feel that they are bad, and divide the community. Some, like myself, feel that these items are one of the things that makes Home great. I suppose there is a case to be made for both, but I would like to explore the latter since the new Slurpee controversy brought this up once again.
At the core of this issue seems to be a generation gap. Many of us grew up in a time where, if you thought of something you wanted to know, you waited until you could get to an encyclopedia or some other reference that could sort it out. If we wanted to talk to someone that wasn’t at home, we were just out of luck until they got back. If you were out somewhere, you weren’t barraged by incoming texts and calls. These things were just a way of life, and we were okay with that lack of immediacy. I would even wager that many of us look back on it somewhat fondly.
We grew up in an age where everyone didn’t have access to everything. It made life interesting in ways that a lot of the younger generations will never know. Many grew up with instant access to anything. They became teens in an age where Twitter and Facebook allowed them to connect instantly with everyone and broadcast anything of importance in their lives. They all had access to the same experiences and information as everyone else they knew at any given time.
When it comes to Home items, you often see the same divide. Some people find it unfair that they and their friends don’t all get the same immediate access to all items. They never learned to appreciate any other way. They want everything to be instantly available, but they do not realize that when everyone has access to all of it, all of it becomes disposable and loses its value.
In order to have diversity on Home, everyone cannot get everything. Some people have to have things that others do not. You and I have to want things that we cannot have. Some things have to be unique, and some things have to be ludicrously expensive. If all items were priced at a low price, and there were no limited items, we would all have the same thing.
Imagine going to work or school tomorrow, and everyone has the same houses, and the same selection of items in their wardrobe. It would be no fun. We would look at one another and think, “oh that shirt, I like mine too.” There would be no variety.
Fortunately, different people have access to different stores, and sometimes are able to get one of a kind items. It makes life interesting, and helps to allow people to be unique.
It reminds me of the phrase, “When all of your wishes are granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed.” I used to think it meant that when you get what you wanted, you find out it isn’t what you dreamed it would be, and would disappoint you. As I grew older, I realized that it is often the exact opposite. Most of these things are exactly what you hoped they would be, but once you have something it becomes real. It is no longer that thing you wanted, but rather that thing you have. Even though it is everything you had hoped, it loses a lot of its mystique. You obtained one thing, but its reality has now replaced your desire. If you get everything, you no longer have anything left to want, and everything loses its worth.
We should consider this when we think of Home items. Even though we may not get every item, sometimes we should appreciate what this unique variety does for Home. I will never get a Slurpee reward because I have no 7/11 nearby. I missed some of the Christmas rewards for the past two years. Even though I don’t have them, I’m still glad the items are limited. They spark conversation and interest, but better than that, they make us all truly unique.
February 28th, 2011 by tdarb | 15 comments
tdarb is a member of LAIR, a group that creates user-generated games for Home. He can sometimes be found wandering around Home taking pics and looking at the sites. he likes to write words that say things, and is also quite fond of cheese.
Twitter
Another very well written article on homestation. I completley agree with the writers point of view, that not everything should be accessible to everyone and home would be a less diverse place if it were.
Some of the items you gotta work pretty hard to get. I literally spent weeks and weeks trying to win the Audi Piano, and when i finally nailed the whole song without missing a beat i was over the moon, yet still i had to wait to see if i had made the top 5 for that day. When i returned to the audi space the following day and the “You have recieved a new item” notice flashed up on the screen i knew i had earned it and all the practice had paid off. A couple of weeks later the Piano mini-game was removed from the audi space and now it is probably my most unique item, it will be a memory of home for me and has pride of place in my audi apartment.
The point is if everyone was just given that piano, it would lose its value and said specialness and would also render the mini-games and other such integral features of home pointless.
Interesting article, tdarb.
All beings of the Earth should have access to all things always. There is no reason other than greed that some have, and some have not.
This primitive way of thinking that most humans refer to as “society” is not society at all, but control. This idea of “scarcity” that world governments would like the humans of Earth to believe is simply not true. There is no scarcity. There is no “value” to anything. There is only the perceived notion of value things have. When one thinks of an item’s value, they do so in the monetary, or scarcity sense for the most part. This is why we have famine, disease, war, and crime… and many, many evils.
With all mankind’s glorious technologies, why is it the the world still operates on such a primitive economy? Money itself, has no value. The monetary economy is a corrupt system. It can never be fixed.
It is not what one owns or how much money one has that makes one unique, but personality.
It is unfortunate that Earthlings are more concerned about their possessions than their planet.
Well said, Nos. Scarcity, with some exceptions like natural disasters, is a man made phenomena and is far more about politics and power then need or paucity. Indeed, wars are universally fought when one group wants to take something from another group by force; such actions are always draped in cloaks of patriotism or religion in order to make the general populace believe their cause is just and to rationalize the most inhuman of human activities.
In a perfect (or at least more enlightened and Homeling -like) world a system of Collectivism (which is what I believe you were alluding to) over commerce would work wonderfully. Unfortunately, the world we live in is far removed from the ideal (too much fur and not enough bubbles). And, of course, Home is only a reflection of that which surrounds us daily.
That being said, I generally don’t have a problem with the idea of exclusivity in Home. As in the real world, some things cost more than others…which means, in turn, that fewer will be able to procure the more expensive items. One can see this as a limitation or constraint or an aspiration toward achievement. Personally I see it as positive reinforcement to curtail purchases of virtual knick-knacks (which can be as addicting as good cocaine or bad meth in some cases).
The idea of in-Home game play rewards is a good one. One likes to be awarded for one’s achievements; there’s nothing wrong with a little pride in oneself. Additionally, after 20 or so levels of Ice Breaker, one needs something to remind them that severe eye strain is bad and that they should never ever do that again. Sort of like how a soul-destroying hangover is a mnemonic tool to remember that 3 bottles of Beefeaters is simply too much.
Also, I have no problems with limited giveaways. Do I want the Chamber Apartment? I sure do. But I wasn’t on Home when it was given out, so I can’t (but I CAN spam Sealwyf with endless invite requests so I can see her forest of Cherry Blossoms, heh heh). While I don’t believe that it is unfair in the least (I’ll take Norse’s counter argument about how one can’t go back in time to experience something they wish they could have as an example, replacing Hendrix at Monterey Pop with The Nice at the Isle of Wight) it does make me go, ‘awwwwwww, dern it’, just a little bit. If it really ‘bothered’ me that I didn’t have the Chamber space, I would find a quiet corner, take a deep breath, and spend some time reassessing my priorities.
As the Rolling Stones lyrically opined, “You can’t always get what you want…but if you try some times, you get what you need”.
Thanks Tdarb…a nice article which has led to interesting discussion.
Discussions like this leave me feeling conflicted. On one hand, I think it’s all to the good if some items must be earned, rather than simply received or purchased. My Gold Poker Bracelet is still one of my proudest possessions in Home. I’m just sorry that the poker rooms vanished before I could legitimately earn the Diamond.
On the other hand, the “exclusive is good” argument often ends up sounding like “I’m cool because I have this, and you suck because you don’t.” Which may be true if you have it because you earned it. If you really rocked at shooting Helghast in Central Plaza, I don’t begrudge you that helmet.
But what if you have something because you were home with your PS3 during the Christmas holidays, while I was off visiting my mom? You got the limited-time Christmas content, and I didn’t. Most of the limited-time items are sort of “meh”, and I don’t regret them. But there are some I do. And some I have that I wish I could share with my friends, who weren’t on Home when they were offered.
The choice of the Chamber Apartment as the featured photo is particularly appropriate. That space is one of the best examples of exclusive content. If it were my choice, I would make the Chamber available to all, perhaps in a new, upgraded edition. That space totally rocks for art shows! And its ambiance and general magical-ness has never been equaled. You should SEE it with 23 animated cherry trees filling the central courtyard! Total Enya! (And thanks, Norse, for that analogy. So true, so true…)
So, excellent article, tdarb. But I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion.
You bring up some good points seal. I think that the fact that the Chamber apartment is limited is what makes it so special. That’s what makes it unique and fun, and what makes people interested in it.
Think about it for a moment. When the apartment was released, we all thought it was gorgeous, and most still do. Then a few weeks later we got some spaces with minigames and said “chamber what?”. It wasn’t until 6 months to a year later that the discussion about it popped up again.
If you really look at it, the Dragon’s Den is pretty comparable to the chamber apartment. It is a static space with no minigames or interactive elements to speak of, and it has a great view outside that no one ever sees. People were irate about that space.
If the Chamber apartment were released to everyone in Home, it would be like harbor studio. It would just be a space to start in, and everyone would toss it aside and move on from it in a week or two……until it became rare again.
I personally have never found an issue with getting the ober rare items and such. Really it’s a matter of resourcefulness.When I saw the Big Daddy Delta suit i had to have one, but didn’t pre order Bioshock 2. Solution? Ebay. 10 bucks. When I couldn’t find a 7/11 what did I do? The internet gave me codes from other eople kind enough to help those like myself. The almighty Helghan jetpack? also Ebay.So when it comes to this “limited” content, all that really matters is how determined you are to have it. I collect these things on home as a hobby, so believe me when I say nothing is out of reach you just gotta go make it happen.
Except for buyable items I guess, If your broke your broke.lol. I can’t help you there.
tdarb’s article raises a very interesting question:
What makes a commodity “exclusive” to people?
In order for something to be exclusive, the *potential* must be there for it to be acquired, albeit not easily: it either takes a high level of resources or skill to procure.
So, as SealWyf pointed out, the people who master certain games within Home in order to achieve rare items absolutely deserve them. They put in the time and effort. I didn’t. They deserve the prizes.
Nor do I begrudge the pricing strategy behind the Mansion. It’s fifteen bucks to acquire — thirty-five if you want all of its pieces. The fact that I wouldn’t give you thirty-five cents for it (because it doesn’t aesthetically appeal to me) is irrelevant; the pricing structure lends the Mansion a certain level of exclusivity, because not everyone can afford it or will opt to spend money on it.
That said, however: it’s still *available* to everyone.
The Chamber Apartment, however, is not. And therein lies the problem.
If there is utterly *no* way to acquire an item, despite any level of skill or money, then its exclusivity is effectively zero. The Bugatti Veyron is the Concorde of cars; I will never in my life drive one, let alone own one. But the fact remains that if I was somehow able to raise enough capital, I *could* actually acquire one. THAT’S an exclusive commodity.
The Chamber Apartment cannot be had for any price. You simply had to be in the right place at the right time. It took no level of skill or money: it simply took luck. If you weren’t in the right place at the right time…too bad.
And that, to me, is wrong.
The counter-argument, of course, is that that’s how the world works. A child born in 1970, for instance, cannot go back in time to experience Hendrix playing at the Monterey Pop Festival. It’s not a matter of skill or money; it’s simply an experience that he cannot have. Just as none of us can go back and watch Brunel building the Clifton Bridge. We are *excluded* from such an experience. Too bad. Tough. Deal with it.
Who says that that’s how a virtual world has to work, though?
It can be argued that one of the main attractions to a virtual world is that it’s an escape from the real world, and the pain of loss it conveys. Here, we *can* be multi-millionaire archangel Echochrome hamsters if we so choose.
Yes, there are certain events in Home’s first ten months of open beta which I wish I’d been around for. But I wasn’t. Okay. Moving on.
That said, I cannot escape the personal belief that in a virtual world, it is *inappropriate* to offer virtual commodities which cannot be acquired by any other means than simply being in the right place at the right time, and then from that point forward there is NO means, at all, under any circumstances, of acquiring said commodity ever again.
That’s not exclusivity. Such items would be exclusive if user-to-user commerce could take place through Home, because then at least there’s still a *means* to acquire a discontinued virtual commodity.
Now, that said, the obvious retort (which I’m sure some of you are thinking) is to shrug and say, “That’s life. Deal with it.”
And you know what? You’re right.
And you know what? I’m right too. Because this is a social issue, and like most of HSM’s other stories, there is no right or wrong answer.
This is one of the reasons why I want to thank tdarb, profusely, for writing this special guest contribution: because I published a point of view which I don’t completely agree with, and it illustrates one of the core strengths of HSM:
HomeStation attempts to *foster* reasoned, intellectual debate on hot-button social issues which no other fan project out there will even touch.
Look at Keara’s “Seven Reasons FOR Cross-Dressing” article, published way back in the early days of HSM. My god, did that article get response. I, personally, believe that you should stick to your own gender in Home — sort of a “truth in advertising” thing — and yet there are many, many counter-arguments to that belief which are all quite valid.
Look at the recent debate on trophyism. Cubehouse wrote a brilliant article on the fallacy of the “trophy room” and it touched off a massive debate, because people on both sides of that issue have very strong opinions on the matter. Subsequent articles representing both viewpoints are in development, and I can’t wait to publish them.
If anyone asks, this is why I personally *really* enjoy serving the HomeStation team: because we have the stones to ask some rather provocative questions, and argue both sides of an issue with equal fervor. It takes a certain level of intellect and maturity to be able to do that (one of the best lessons I was ever taught as a child, going through debate training: learn to argue an issue from the side you disagree with), and this team is doing it.
As a result, HSM is, more often than not, rather exciting to read.
Thank you again, tdarb, for a great article. I really hope to see this discussion continue for some time.
While exclusive items can give u a sense of accomplishment if u earn them placing very much importance on them seems silly to me.Two exclusive items i currently have in my inventory are the diamond poker bracelet for poker and the golden vickie.Both were obtainable with some effort but of the two the poker bracelet means more to me than the vickie as it is now unobtainable.Did i work harder to get it?no,in fact much less,but if i were to lose both tomorrow i wouldn’t lose any sleep over it.These are rewards for games after all,i’m sure i’d feel differently if we were talking about real world things like Nos brought up.While i agree with much of what he said i’d like to point out a couple of things 1st if every1 had access to all things equally would that be an improvement for the species as a whole?Rightly or wrongly the the quest to improve our individuals lot has led to many of the inventions we take for granted.If we were all guarenteed the same things i think far fewer people would be inclined to better mankind by inventing new things without a profit motive.2nd by saying”This is why we have famine,disease,war,and crime….and many,many evils”it seems like u are saying every instance of one of these things is evil which is a very broad and i believe untrue statement.Some crimes are committed for very noble reasons,wars can be evil or blessed by a god or atheistic,famines and diseases seem evil to those suffering them but are gold mines for countries with food surpluses and drug companies.It really comes down to points of view,so while i also think society=control and that the current monetary system is a smoke and mirrors deception i also think that great care should be used in calling entire catergories of human endeavors evil.Like most things there are examples to be had on both the evil and good merits of each,as generalities you may be correct but as an absolute i respectfully disagree.
Wow. I mean, just wow!
Definition of Exclusive…..
-not divided or shared with others; “they have exclusive use of the machine”; “sole rights of publication”
-- excluding much or all; especially all but a particular group or minority; “exclusive clubs”; “an exclusive restaurants and shops”
-a news report that is reported first by one news organization; “he got a scoop on the bribery of city officials”
-single(a): not divided among or brought to bear on more than one object or objective; “judging a contest with a single eye”; “a single devotion to duty”; “undivided affection”; “gained their exclusive attention”
I think there are things that just went [i][b]too[/i][/b] deep into the full meaning of what this article is suppose to be about: exclusive items on Playstation Home.
After consolidating some of the posts that I have read prior to my comment that I wish to continue on (I am on my Playstation 3) I feel that this article hits on several merrits here.
For instance, I am proud to say that I am a “FPS noob”, to which while some of the games are fun, they aren’t a huge intregral part of my gaming collection. So when I was ranked No. 11 in the KZ3 Plaza Defender game and No. 1 in said game “in the Plaza” for the duration of the event I was surprised and thrilled to know that I’ve accomplished a goal that I setted. The ISA Gear is a nice compliment to my collection and I am proud to say that I love collecting exclusive items not to just say “haha! I have them and you don’t” but it is because it is something that makes me rather unique.
While I agree with some items are kept exclusive due to value (Chamber Apartment, ISA Gear, EA items) I also respectfully disagree with the conslusion; if you have access to the exclusive content, it is no longer an exclusive.
Most might not know this (and some might) but there were illegitimate methods to which you could obtain certain items that weren’t available either in NA Home no longer or in another region altogether. Once the method is achieved you could gain exclusive items that aren’t obtainable in any conventional means. Whether these said items were cool to you or not is rather a matter of tastes and opinions but I find it baffling to that if these exclusive items that could be “hacked” be easily obtained, it’s what Norse said: it’s no longer an exclusive but by then just merely an option. Much like the Home Mansion (it doesn’t appeal to me neither); its price point makes it exclusive but it is still an option.
Even the Slurpee items (which I didn’t understand how it was a “controversey”), while they CAN be exclusive items, you have to be at the right place, right time to get them. There is no 7/11 where I live, yet a VERY nice Home user decided to bless me with the EVER-SO appealing KZ3 Armor Jump Suit attire.
It wasn’t hacked or anything of the such; I legitimately obtained that suit from a new friend who wished to said less me with that attire as a late birthday present. But after seeing that everyone who doesn’t have a 7-Eleven near them can also receive this item if they have friends that knew codes could easily obtain these rare items, it was no longer an exclusive. However, if you’ve missed out that’s it, you’ve missed out.
I am one of the lucky few to obtain such items during closed and open beta stages of Home (Chamber Apartment, free Summer House space, certain clothing items that aren’t available no longer on NA Home). Exclsuive or not, I’m pretty settled with what I have. If the options are there and if they hold my interests I’m doing whatever I can (in legitimate means) to obtain that item. If it doesn’t, I scoff it off and move on.
That’s just my point of view on this article.
There are many things no longer available in Home that I might like to have, but it isn’t going to cause me to lose any sleep if I don’t get them. There are many ways to express your individuality in Home without having exclusive items. If you worked to obtain them through a game then you earned them and I think that is great. I express my individualism by using what is available to me such as clothing and apartments and making them my own style through different combination’s.I have a few pieces of clothing that I have rarely seen in Home and I do enjoy them, but I enjoy them because of what I can do with them to express myself, not because of their exclusivity. This is a good article because it has sparked a great debate. Great job!
Do people go to a Chevrolet dealer and complain they only get the Chevette for the Chevette price? Probably. Why shouldn’t everyone get a Corvette for the same money as a Chevette? Because there is a tiered price system that is way too complex for anyone who would seriously ask this question to understand.
Actually some people win contests and get Corvettes for free. I am sure people complain that this is unfair to the people who buy Chevettes. The fact that Chevrolet does not make it clear to all potential Chevette owners that there is a possible situation under which they could win a Corvette for free is something many forum users would call wrong.
The reality is that people who buy Corvettes subsidize the production of Chevettes. Chevettes are there to get you in the door. They sell them so there is a car you definitely can afford at their dealerships.
The obvious difference here is that people feel that virtual items are all valued the same -- zero. It just takes the flip of a switch to make them own them. No real work.
The reality is that to get to the point where the switch needs to be flipped takes a lot of money. So the question becomes, how do you get back that money?
Based on my informal survey of items on AlphaZone4 released last year in NA, something like 90% of the items were priced 99 cents or less. Greater than 99% were priced $2.99 or less.
So I see an opposite problem here. I want more exclusive items. I am willing to pay another $25 to arrive everytime at my Mansion in a limo. I want to spend $50 for access to my apartment overlooking a live Central Plaza, so I can actually look down on people, not just in my mind. I want to pay $99 for my life sized statue gallery of the cast of “The Kardashians” which I will take on my Loot set and do my own version of their show.
I have heard of a $300 apartment in another virtual world and a $999 iPhone app. So to be accurate, Home really does not have any items truly priced as Exclusive yet. I have no knowledge of what is coming, but I am looking forward to the day when the $15 mark is broken.
And no I don’t own a Corvette, but I am glad they sell them.
I too would gladly pay more for certain things but there has to be some real value to the item for me.A high rise penthouse suite with an awesome view would do it or upgrades to existing apartments if there were items or games with an extra wing.There is a market for exclusive or high value items but for me there has to be some kind of functionality to them.A item that costs more but adds little or no value for me isn’t going to get bought by me.What constitutes value?u might ask and i can’t really say for sure except that i know it when i see it,which makes previewing very important when it comes to big ticket items.