P2P with cosmetic shop is good compromise. Let me explain why.
1. F2P games with P2W cash shop allow for large (but mostly unhappy) player population. Game is free and many players can play, but cash shop with P2W items ruins the game play in large degree.
2. P2P games with no cash shop at all but large subscription fee would allow for awesome and balanced game play, but would end up in much smaller population because many players would not be able to afford large subscription fee, which in end would again not be good for servers health.
3. P2P games with cosmetic cash shop, and smaller subscription fee are good compromise because they still allow large enough player populations, and cash shop doesn't have P2W items that would ruin the game play.
I am personally very happy that Ashes will be the third option I listed.
P2P with cosmetic shop is good compromise. Let me explain why.
1. F2P games with P2W cash shop allow for large (but mostly unhappy) player population. Game is free and many players can play, but cash shop with P2W items ruins the game play in large degree.
2. P2P games with no cash shop at all but large subscription fee would allow for awesome and balanced game play, but would end up in much smaller population because many players would not be able to afford large subscription fee, which in end would again not be good for servers health.
3. P2P games with cosmetic cash shop, and smaller subscription fee are good compromise because they still allow large enough player populations, and cash shop doesn't have P2W items that would ruin the game play.
I am personally very happy that Ashes will be the third option I listed.
Option 3 could very easily be described as a compromise between options 1 and 2. I think the question might be, do consumers want to compromise on entertainment?
Personally I don't like to compromise if its my money. A sandwich with shit between those 2 pieces of bread is still a shit sandwich even if you scrape off half the shit.
I am all for a higher reasonable subscription if that means no micro transactions.
Well maybe you are ok with playing on low pop server, and with scarce community, but many are not.
I myself enjoy full servers with many people everywhere. That is entertainment for me, and playing on low pop realm is sandwich that you described.
Are you under the belief that a $15 - $20 sub is what will make the difference between a high pop game and a low pop game?
In the current gaming climate there are vast numbers are people that are sick of the nickle and dime tactics of developers and publishers, there are vast numbers of people that are sick of the aggressive in your face cant play the game unless you are clicking off the latest "buy our crap" advert. Vast numbers of people will pay $15-$20 to be able to play a game without the micro transaction plague that is now in almost every game on the market.
Where is the explosion of players begging for more micro transactions? Where are they? Might find a few if you really look hard. You will find a fair amount of players that are neutral or don't care either way on the subject. You wont have any problem finding droves of disgruntled players that want nothing to do with micro transactions.
MMO subs have relatively held the $15 fee for the last 10-15 years. I could see paying a premium to avoid dealing with mircro transactions disrupting my game play.
On a lighter note well if you are willing to pay 60 $ per month, you could just buy 60$ from the cash shop and get something for it. Right? Just think about it.
Micro-transactions have ruined some games & have also prevented purchases of a game. I know that myself and many other's were considering Shadow Of War to buy. However when looking at the loot chest system and how you can buy with real currency, it turned a lot of us away.
Video games were originally something you played and progressed threw, you were rewarded for completing content. Developers have forgotten this simple fact which ruined their game and in turn lowered their revenue's. Many developers are also casting a net when developing and releasing a game. A net on the entire gaming market and hoping for the best. If I could give one piece of advice to developers it would be; Know your niche market within the gaming industry and cater to them. They will be the ones that support and pay for your game "residually".
I also believe that gear should be changeable as far as colour, textures, patterns, etc. These also can be implemented into systems without the need for a cash shop. Part of the immersion into a game is having to complete content in order to get the rewards you want. Players have been finding it difficult to immerse themselves into new games due to not enough content and how the reward/achievement systems are not properly setup.
A final note, many console gamers are starting to move into pc gaming due to the price of pc games and the better selection of games and options available to them. I know many gamers that are currently on consul that are starting to save for a pc setup. Having said that their will be a wave within the next year of transferring console gamers.
With EAs latest statement on earnings broken down, they are simply not going to listen to any arguments about microtransactions being bad: $689 MILLION!
If people keep paying that kind of money to add to a company's bottom line, then microtransactions are here to stay. These were mostly from loot boxes so the lure of gambling is part of the problem - and we need more kids addicted to gambling right?
When there is so much money on the line, it is a gargantuan task for any developer/publisher to deny any form of microtransaction in their game.
I am fine paying a subscription fee for Ashes. If it is the standard $15, I won't mind if it is a little more and it can be brought down to $15 if you pay for a year's sub up front, or something like that.
You would be surprised how quickly the acceptance of sub fee drops once you go past the $15 mark. I will try and find the youtube vid that had figures from a poll on that exact issue, but if memory serves, by the time the sub fee was at $20, the numbers of people willing to pay the $15 had dropped below 30%.
Small increases make big differences to people's perception of how they are being treated.
That is why a cash shop with cosmetic only items is a good compromise. The studio can make a little more money, keeping the sub figure down to a point where everyone is willing to pay it. Longevity is good because the maximum number of people are playing, and some (small percentage) are willing to pay more for cosmetic items to boost the studios revenue.
Would you prefer a $60 box fee, then a $15 sub with no cash shop?
Or would you prefer no box fee, $15 sub and cosmetic cash shop?
Without doing a poll (and I could be surprised) I think I know where the majority will fall.
@Bajjer Your post is pretty spot on. With that kind of money to be made it is difficult for a company to resist.
Sadly this trend is pushing people away from games. I used to buy 5-15 games a year in time past depending what was releasing in a given year. In the last two years I have only bought 1 game not including Ashes. With all the early access / cash shop / gold edition / platinum edition / premium / loot box etc. BS in games today..... I have all but checked out. And even checking out and sticking to older single player games isn't fool proof. Bethesda is retro actively adding a cash shop for mods to the Fallout and Elder Scroll series. When I say micro transactions are a plague, the evidence is almost every where.
There have been a select few studios that have drawn various lines in the sand. IS being one of them. However it would be very refreshing if IS would stand out in the industry and take a no micro transactions stance.
The developers of Dauntless have announced they are removing the lootboxes from their game. Still have a cash shop, but it's a F2P game so that is their revenue stream.
So these kinds of decisions can be made. There had been a LOT of really negative press about loot boxes in particular lately, but it does go to show that being vocal can actually have a positive effect.
The developers of Dauntless have announced they are removing the lootboxes from their game. Still have a cash shop, but it's a F2P game so that is their revenue stream.
So these kinds of decisions can be made. There had been a LOT of really negative press about loot boxes in particular lately, but it does go to show that being vocal can actually have a positive effect.
So shine on you crazy diamonds.
Due to Shadow of War and all of that garbage, lootboxes ruin games in my opinion. Slightly off-topic but Monster Hunter World is going to annihilate that game when it comes out. I bought into it and was completely disappointed.
Well I think Cash Shops would be more readily accepeted if for instance: there was a sort of Cash Shop Project or Kickstarter. Let say xx percent of the money earned by the Cash Shop went to lets say making animation models for or male vs female dragons, young and very old dragons and different types of dragons. Ounce funds were there wow look six months later that content comes out.
I think the overall business model would be accepted in a positive way if IS showed it was still working on the game, not just working on next expansion selling levels. You have to have expansion cause of levels it come with.
In short I see companies making millions and hundredsof millions having the resources to do ground breaking things, and all they do is more of the same with a gimmick and some improvement in player qaulity of life. Makes me feel like they are just pumping them out for the money. Kind of like those sequels to movies that just fill the bill.
personally I would prefer no cash shop rather earn any gear/weapons/cosmetics in game by playing cash shop will ruin one of the games founding ideas ...risk and reward...there is no risk in coughing up cash for something you desire in the game best way to support this game is to play it as often as you can...gametime will keep the servers alive and active..popping on once a week to spend your 5 dollars in the cash shop will not keep this game alive want a sweet cosmetic find a tailor with the recipe or locate yourself and make if your able...want a cool mount find a breeder and buy or tame yourself if your able again must be some risk involved(getting mats etc) in order for the reward(sweet gear) cash shop will eventually break the game imo
personally I would prefer no cash shop rather earn any gear/weapons/cosmetics in game by playing cash shop will ruin one of the games founding ideas ...risk and reward...there is no risk in coughing up cash for something you desire in the game best way to support this game is to play it as often as you can...gametime will keep the servers alive and active..popping on once a week to spend your 5 dollars in the cash shop will not keep this game alive want a sweet cosmetic find a tailor with the recipe or locate yourself and make if your able...want a cool mount find a breeder and buy or tame yourself if your able again must be some risk involved(getting mats etc) in order for the reward(sweet gear) cash shop will eventually break the game imo
I would like to see intrepid break the mould and not follow the industry norm of microtransactions surely they can see how that is going how it kills the longjevity of games..drives players away after a short period...this game has the makings of a game I could be playing for the next 10 yrs if they can fulfil all the ideas they want to implement...but cash shop even just for cosmetic items is not the way I would like them to go
I hope that every item in the game, will be as well made and loved by the developers as cash shop items. Because some games, such as BDO, the cash shop items outdo anything you can earn in-game.
I hope that every item in the game, will be as well made and loved by the developers as cash shop items. Because some games, such as BDO, the cash shop items outdo anything you can earn in-game.
Well from what I know they are going to be mostly recolours. So you will have a version of that item in game.
I hope that every item in the game, will be as well made and loved by the developers as cash shop items. Because some games, such as BDO, the cash shop items outdo anything you can earn in-game.
Well from what I know they are going to be mostly recolours. And have not seen any info just what type of items are going to be in the cash shop and how big it is going to be.. It could be mounts, pets, some specialty consumable item(like a sunstone that lights up area with cool aura for five minutes.) . There could also be toys and there are going to be monster coins.
There might not be any actual gear or weapons for sale.
Cash Shops do not have to be huge to make money. The money comes from the amount of people that actually buy an item. 500k player base 100k buy 10$ item well that is 1 million.
Is there a confirmation of which system the devs of AoC will be taking. I can a lot of posts that say they think it will be this or that option but nothing official. Does anyone have a link which gives the official stand?
Is there a confirmation of which system the devs of AoC will be taking. I can a lot of posts that say they think it will be this or that option but nothing official. Does anyone have a link which gives the official stand?
Is there a confirmation of which system the devs of AoC will be taking. I can a lot of posts that say they think it will be this or that option but nothing official. Does anyone have a link which gives the official stand?
So long as the cosmetic items are bound and not being used to make gross amounts of gold it doesnt bother me (this was a common tactic used in Mabinogi). If the items are unbound then you have microtransactions that are effectively USD used for gold or high tier in game items, just in a roundabout way.
Yes, you should get all the content, you paid for it. However, all the cosmetics? If everyone had everything just because "I paid for it, I have the right to get it, now!!" what would be the point in cosmetics then? Everyone would look the same, again, because everyone has access to the same cosmetic items and will follow a meta that looks "cool".
Your logic is heavily wrong. You just basically said "there will be only one/very few cosmetic items", which would be ****. Idc how can anyone even think that players not look the same, cause they need to pay to get cosmetic. I guess ppls are that dumb nowdays....
LMAO the game company's are so greedy nowdays. The game aren't even released yet, but they already sell the cosmetics on a game, which have a continuous cost as a monthly base. That's pure greed nothing else. Some greedy company started to put microtransactions into a game which already cost money, and nowdays we are at a point where some company put microtransactions into a single player game.(not this game) Well, that happens when someone doesn't know how to create a good game, so they instead milk the smaller player base with microtransactions to get profit.
Cosmetic microtransactions are ok in a 100% free game. It's somewhat ok in a low cost game(<30$). It's not ok in a full pierce game. And it definetly not ok in a game which charges you every month.
But well, peoples are greedy, and the dumb peoples getting exploited, that's how the world works.
Your logic is based on your perception. As it is for all people. There is no universal right or wrong opinion here.
The purpose of any company is to make money. Period. How they choose to do that is up to them. This isn't Socialism or Communism. It's capitalism. The best part of a Capitalist society is that you are free to choose when and where you spend your money. That's how your voice is heard.
Haven’t read the whole thread, just the last couple of pages…
I am firmly in the camp of preferring no cash shop or
microtransactions, but am ok with cosmetics only if that is what is going to
happen. I still don’t like the idea that I can’t access everything unless I
spend more money (minor sad face) but as they are just cosmetics that I mostly
won’t care about then not a big deal for me. Kind of a selfish approach but no
point kicking up a stink over something that seems set in stone. As long as
there is no pay to win stuff then I am happy to go with the flow.
You hear stories of people spending hundreds of dollars on
this stuff on top of a subscription. I guess there are just a lot of people way
way richer than me.
Just whatever you do AoC, don't be like EA, the fan's are not happy with what they are trying to do, and milk the market through micro-transactions. Then again IS already said no P2W so we should be solid.
Comments
1. F2P games with P2W cash shop allow for large (but mostly unhappy) player population. Game is free and many players can play, but cash shop with P2W items ruins the game play in large degree.
2. P2P games with no cash shop at all but large subscription fee would allow for awesome and balanced game play, but would end up in much smaller population because many players would not be able to afford large subscription fee, which in end would again not be good for servers health.
3. P2P games with cosmetic cash shop, and smaller subscription fee are good compromise because they still allow large enough player populations, and cash shop doesn't have P2W items that would ruin the game play.
I am personally very happy that Ashes will be the third option I listed.
The answer to that question is, I believe, a critical one to this debate.
Personally I don't like to compromise if its my money. A sandwich with shit between those 2 pieces of bread is still a shit sandwich even if you scrape off half the shit.
I am all for a higher reasonable subscription if that means no micro transactions.
Well maybe you are ok with playing on low pop server, and with scarce community, but many are not.
I myself enjoy full servers with many people everywhere. That is entertainment for me, and playing on low pop realm is sandwich that you described.
In the current gaming climate there are vast numbers are people that are sick of the nickle and dime tactics of developers and publishers, there are vast numbers of people that are sick of the aggressive in your face cant play the game unless you are clicking off the latest "buy our crap" advert. Vast numbers of people will pay $15-$20 to be able to play a game without the micro transaction plague that is now in almost every game on the market.
Where is the explosion of players begging for more micro transactions? Where are they? Might find a few if you really look hard. You will find a fair amount of players that are neutral or don't care either way on the subject. You wont have any problem finding droves of disgruntled players that want nothing to do with micro transactions.
MMO subs have relatively held the $15 fee for the last 10-15 years. I could see paying a premium to avoid dealing with mircro transactions disrupting my game play.
No. But someone was saying back there he would pay 60$ monthly to not have cosmetic CS. And that would definitely make a difference.
15$ + cosmetic CS is what I consider a "third option", which I believe Ashes will be.
Video games were originally something you played and progressed threw, you were rewarded for completing content. Developers have forgotten this simple fact which ruined their game and in turn lowered their revenue's. Many developers are also casting a net when developing and releasing a game. A net on the entire gaming market and hoping for the best. If I could give one piece of advice to developers it would be; Know your niche market within the gaming industry and cater to them. They will be the ones that support and pay for your game "residually".
I also believe that gear should be changeable as far as colour, textures, patterns, etc. These also can be implemented into systems without the need for a cash shop. Part of the immersion into a game is having to complete content in order to get the rewards you want. Players have been finding it difficult to immerse themselves into new games due to not enough content and how the reward/achievement systems are not properly setup.
A final note, many console gamers are starting to move into pc gaming due to the price of pc games and the better selection of games and options available to them. I know many gamers that are currently on consul that are starting to save for a pc setup. Having said that their will be a wave within the next year of transferring console gamers.
If people keep paying that kind of money to add to a company's bottom line, then microtransactions are here to stay. These were mostly from loot boxes so the lure of gambling is part of the problem - and we need more kids addicted to gambling right?
When there is so much money on the line, it is a gargantuan task for any developer/publisher to deny any form of microtransaction in their game.
I am fine paying a subscription fee for Ashes. If it is the standard $15, I won't mind if it is a little more and it can be brought down to $15 if you pay for a year's sub up front, or something like that.
You would be surprised how quickly the acceptance of sub fee drops once you go past the $15 mark. I will try and find the youtube vid that had figures from a poll on that exact issue, but if memory serves, by the time the sub fee was at $20, the numbers of people willing to pay the $15 had dropped below 30%.
Small increases make big differences to people's perception of how they are being treated.
That is why a cash shop with cosmetic only items is a good compromise. The studio can make a little more money, keeping the sub figure down to a point where everyone is willing to pay it. Longevity is good because the maximum number of people are playing, and some (small percentage) are willing to pay more for cosmetic items to boost the studios revenue.
Would you prefer a $60 box fee, then a $15 sub with no cash shop?
Or would you prefer no box fee, $15 sub and cosmetic cash shop?
Without doing a poll (and I could be surprised) I think I know where the majority will fall.
Sadly this trend is pushing people away from games. I used to buy 5-15 games a year in time past depending what was releasing in a given year. In the last two years I have only bought 1 game not including Ashes. With all the early access / cash shop / gold edition / platinum edition / premium / loot box etc. BS in games today..... I have all but checked out. And even checking out and sticking to older single player games isn't fool proof. Bethesda is retro actively adding a cash shop for mods to the Fallout and Elder Scroll series. When I say micro transactions are a plague, the evidence is almost every where.
There have been a select few studios that have drawn various lines in the sand. IS being one of them. However it would be very refreshing if IS would stand out in the industry and take a no micro transactions stance.
So these kinds of decisions can be made. There had been a LOT of really negative press about loot boxes in particular lately, but it does go to show that being vocal can actually have a positive effect.
So shine on you crazy diamonds.
I think the overall business model would be accepted in a positive way if IS showed it was still working on the game, not just working on next expansion selling levels. You have to have expansion cause of levels it come with.
In short I see companies making millions and hundredsof millions having the resources to do ground breaking things, and all they do is more of the same with a gimmick and some improvement in player qaulity of life. Makes me feel like they are just pumping them out for the money. Kind of like those sequels to movies that just fill the bill.
"cash shop will ruin one of the games founding ideas ...risk and reward...there is no risk in coughing up cash for something you desire in the game "
Hadn't even considered this one myself, would love to hear this point rationalized.
There might not be any actual gear or weapons for sale.
Cash Shops do not have to be huge to make money. The money comes from the amount of people that actually buy an item. 500k player base 100k buy 10$ item well that is 1 million.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1791529601/ashes-of-creation-new-mmorpg-by-intrepid-studios/faqs#project_faq_206613
The purpose of any company is to make money. Period. How they choose to do that is up to them. This isn't Socialism or Communism. It's capitalism. The best part of a Capitalist society is that you are free to choose when and where you spend your money. That's how your voice is heard.
Haven’t read the whole thread, just the last couple of pages…
I am firmly in the camp of preferring no cash shop or microtransactions, but am ok with cosmetics only if that is what is going to happen. I still don’t like the idea that I can’t access everything unless I spend more money (minor sad face) but as they are just cosmetics that I mostly won’t care about then not a big deal for me. Kind of a selfish approach but no point kicking up a stink over something that seems set in stone. As long as there is no pay to win stuff then I am happy to go with the flow.
You hear stories of people spending hundreds of dollars on this stuff on top of a subscription. I guess there are just a lot of people way way richer than me.
http://www.game-debate.com/news/24041/dice-slashes-star-wars-battlefront-hero-prices-75-as-ea-share-value-takes-a-tumble