I genuinely hope that this is unintentional or a bug, and not an unscrupulous ploy to extract more money from members. I was wanting my Tiger to have a nice comfortable bedding in from of the fireplace, so I have been waiting for the Sleeping Furs to come back onto the Black Lotus Bazaar (BLB). So when I saw the Camping Set come back onto the BLB (Image 1) I decided to go ahead and purchase it.
I had a total of 186 Crom Coins (CC) remaining from my Battle Pass, and the Sleeping Furs cost 175CC. So to purchase it as a standalone item 186-175=11CC remaining; no problem right? Wrong. And this is the highly suspect question mark hangs precariously above the situation. This is the screen which greeted me when I attempted to purchase the Sleeping Furs (Image 2).
So just to clarify in case there is any confusion, it was not enough to have the 175CC required for the purchase. Noooo. The game wanted me to have a total of 528CC or greater, the cost of the entire pack/bundle, in my wallet to make the transaction on a single item! And there was no way I was going buy another $15+ worth of Crom Coins just to complete a purchase I should have been able to make to begin with. So my poor Tiger is still without his nice warm, comfortable bedding.
So is this an oversight or a bug, or an underhanded way to try and milk additional funds from players by design!? I wont hold my breath, but it would be great if someone from @Community could please answer this for me.
Thatâs not a bug⊠unfortunately bundles are only available as bundles, you cannot purchase the individual items on their own unless theyâre offered separately without a bundle. They simply list what items and in what manner make up the total price, but the price is displayed right next to your buy button.
As you can see from this thread HaHaHa ! Bazaar go brrrrrrrr the individual items from bundles can be purchased when they are presented alone like the stone bench in this example, as a solo object it has a smaller reduction in price that the bundle reduction ( from 125 CC to 88 CC ), as @Xevyr said, the items while priced individually in the bundle are not sold separately inside of the bundled price. and you are right calling this a money milking scheme as we have never seen the objects sold at the full price so it can be considered as false advertising by some countryâs law since itâs a âfakeâ reduction from a price that was never firstly established ( sold at ) . hope it helps
Bingo! A lot of us have been saying almost from the start that the so called discounts are bullshŃt. Theyâre a marketing ploy, not real discounts. For a discount to be real, there has to be a possibility to buy at a full price somehow.
But hey, itâs legal, or at least it hasnât been contested in courts yet, so no one cares.
It is also done this way to show if you already purchased one of the items in the bundle. IE, if you already had the furs, then it would be red marked and your bundle price woild be a total of the remaining.
You canât buy a single item from a full set if the item is not one of the single items in the bottom right corner. In a bundle, the individual items are listed with a Crom Coin price but canât be individually purchased there.
Items in a bundle are generally cheaper than the same item individually (hence the price breakdown). If you partially already own some of the items in a bundle, the price is readjusted accordingly. Bundles canât be spliced unless the item is shown in the daily Bazaar rotation.
The legality of false discounts is, to be frank, a tincy tiny bit questionable, at least in some jurisdictions. What we see in the bazaar may be a form of false advertising.
Itâs curious that Funcom got away with this so far, but probably no competitor has enough motivation to sue their butt off, and the issue is probably too obscure for the authorities or consumer protection agencies to even notice it.
There was so much comments about Tencent introducing these things because they are smart at milking money etc.
But this whole Bazaar shop feels like it was designed by some child trying to be smart.
Itâs like entering shopping mall where only 1 section is open (you can buy bakes, but vegetables and meat sections are closed, try again another day), and everything has fake discount price tags.
The worst part is that actually we are telling them this since it was introduced and all we got back was a âgolden showerâ.
Iâm pretty sure the point of @Croms_Faithfulâs post is that this readjustment is worth fuŃk-all if youâre forced to spend real world money to buy enough Crom Crypto to cover the unadjusted price.
Yes, it is confusing. But we were jist adding thatvit is meant as a way to tell if you own some of the pieces already, and the price is adjusted accordingly⊠But it is confusng if you own none, and it looks like they can be purchased individually. Maybe have a stamp of owned instead of a mark out only.
To be perfectly honest good buddy the thread was initially derived from confusion and me seeking clarification. Permit me to elaborate. After the Battle Pass was retired I began to spend the CC from it, plus a negligible quantity of leftovers from previously. I suspect the confusion stemmed from (if I remember correctly) wanting to purchase an item or two from a pack where I already owned the other item(s). So I went to the desired, individual unowned item, resting the cursor upon it, and then initiated the transaction. And in all likelihood, giving me the erroneous impression that the change in outlay now meant we were able to purchase items from packs individually. Perhaps I was a naive and should have known better.
Which leads me to this part which post hoc still rings true. It turns out it is just another cog in a grander money milking scheme. I should have known better. There is nothing on the Bazaar which is done for the benefit of consumers, and this addition is no different. It would seem it is only there to muddy the waters and give the consumer the illusion that they are getting value for money.
THIS (couldnât agee more @Noqturn) is what I initially thought was case, and how it should function. That would certainly be closer to what a micro-transaction actually is. Juxtaposed to the exorbitant, disingeuous model we have now.
(couldnât agee more