Key Takeaways
- Artificial scarcity is toxic manipulation — it entices many to participate but only benefits a select few.
- We all see through it but can’t help but participate: Even though we know it’s a manipulation tactic, it still works.
- It’s a tactic that benefits nobody, harming consumers and even companies in the long run.
Most people have a nagging desire to collect. Everyone has a different trigger, whether it be coins or games, but there’s something almost universal about wanting to own a rare or unique item that you care about. It’s a major foundation for things like collectible card games and gacha games, where the “fun” is in paying for a chance to get that one character or card you need. It’s a psychological smoothie of OCD, gambling, and FOMO tactics that’s incredibly effective.
Related
This game series is so well-made I can’t believe more developers aren’t trying to copy it
There’s no grand secret to how Like a Dragon games come out as often and at the quality they do and it’s time other devs learned that lesson.
Gaming companies have picked up on this and have been finding ways to exploit this little tendency. There are ways where this can be done more or less fairly — especially in scenarios where it makes sense — but a few companies are fabricating the proper conditions entirely. And the worst part is, it doesn’t even benefit them. Artificial scarcity is a lose-lose scenario and a practice we need to abolish in the gaming space.
There are some scenarios where scarcity is justified, but there is almost always an alternative that could be provided.
PlayStation 5 Pro
- 4K Capability
- Yes
- Brand
- PlayStation
- Storage
- 2TB
Artificial scarcity is toxic manipulation
We all see through it but can’t help but participate
Before diving into the meat of things, I should explain exactly what artificial scarcity means in gaming. Artificial scarcity is when a company deliberately makes a limited quantity of something — this could be hardware or software — to usually sell at a premium. The most recent example was the 30th-anniversary edition of the PS5 Pro, of which only 12,300 were produced. The goal is to entice people who may not normally be interested in a product to feel compelled to get this “special” one, since it would be impossible to get afterward if they missed the window.
This kind of scarcity brings out the worst in people.
Another, and far more egregious, example was the Super Mario 3D All-Stars game for the Switch. Not only did Nintendo make a limited number of physical copies, but it only sold digital copies for a strict amount of time. It should go without saying, but there is no limit on the number of copies there can be of a digital product, so cutting off access to it is a blatant manipulation tactic. If it wanted to only make so many physical copies of the game, it would be a little better if the digital versions were still available. That way, the die-hard fans could fight over the physical copies and the less adamant players could still have the digital option if they struck out initially.
This kind of scarcity brings out the worst in people. Just think about some infamous Black Friday videos of people trampling all over each other just for a TV deal. We don’t typically see that with games, since it’s all handled through online retailers and preorders, but the mentality is the same. It forces us to pull out every trick in the book, some even resorting to bots and other underhanded methods, to secure something that is only so rare because the company it decided it would be. If that isn’t manipulation of the highest degree, I don’t know what is.
Related
Microsoft pretends to be puzzled by Xbox’s game shortage, but the truth is pretty clear
Microsoft says it doesn’t know why devs are skipping Xbox, but the answer is pretty obvious.
The worst part of it is that we all know it’s happening, but we can’t help but feed into it. While the scarcity was created artificially, it’s real in the sense that these companies won’t make any more than they originally intended. If you resist as a form of defiance, it won’t matter as long as 12,300 others don’t, for example.
This tactic benefits nobody
It is a marketing beat at best
I don’t need to spend much time explaining why this tactic harms consumers. Limiting a stock for no other reason than a marketing beat and selling something at a higher cost for the “privilege” of owning it will just leave the majority of people feeling bad for missing out. Those who do get one receive a rush from knowing most others didn’t, or worse, turn around and resell it at an even more exploitative price.
Even the companies doing this are shooting themselves in the foot to some extent. Yes, it gets a big marketing surge where everyone is talking about this limited item and fighting to get it, and there’s the profit it will make from the sales, but that’s just a drop in the bucket — imagine how many copies of Super Mario 3D-All Stars would’ve sold by now if it was on the eShop. Limited edition consoles are more justifiable, but isn’t that why we have replaceable faceplates? Give those who want to spend big the authentic console, but at least let everyone else feel included by decking out their current consoles. There’s way more money and goodwill to be made by letting people actually buy your products.
Related
We already lost the fight for game preservation
As much we say we care about gaming history, the truth is we’ve already lost this war.
There are no excuses for artificial scarcity. It fuels the worst part of our culture over nothing and only benefits the select few who are lucky enough to be allowed to spend their money on something. Very little, if anything, in gaming needs to be scarce anymore without some alternative. As much as I wish it would end, I’m not sure if there’s a way to make it happen.
Trending Products
