Ember credits and the RISK of a sinking Subscription ship.

ArchivedUser

Observing the evolution of the CashShop*
And the new*
Embers: (in-game marketplace credits, NO P2W!)

An intermediary currency is a massive warning sign to the viability and legitimacy of a Subscription*

the Subscription may derail into a glorified currency accumulator perk rather than an access to services/product...

This does not bode well IMO.

ArchivedUser

could you elaborate on that please,  I still don't quite understand what's the problem.

ArchivedUser

The Embers are for the Cash Shop which is only cosmetic, so where is the issue?

ArchivedUser

an intermediary currency*  allows for a get out of subscription model free card.

It is basically a catalyst for a F2P conversion. (if the subscription doesn't work out)

I don't follow the 'cosmetic only' mantra so don't bother with it, it's not relevant to the OP

ArchivedUser

If Embers could be used for sub cost, in game shopping, or Embers were responsible for unlocking content (besides cosmetics) I would be more willing to jump on this particular wagon at this point.

I do see your point with Embers being a way to sink extra real currency into the world and get game currency out. As long as there is no reason besides cash-shop cosmetics for Embers and players don't start selling/buying to/from each other for in game currency or rl currency, I don't see an issue.

ArchivedUser

If you can ever buy anything else besides cosmetic within the cash shop, Intrepid would have a huge PR issue at that moment. Any services or p2w aspects would insta kill the game.

ArchivedUser

the topic is relative to the currency risk to the subscription* viability.

not the content* in the shop....

there are already threads regarding microtrasactions...this is not 1 of them.

ArchivedUser

if the content of the shop isnt relevant, with or without change of the sub model why even bother creating a topic? the change in buisness model even if it would happen would cause the change of content of the cash shop to change.

ArchivedUser

we knew the came would have an ingam cash shop which needed a ingame currency for the items, so why the big suprise over the embers?

ArchivedUser

What is the point of a intermediary currency?

ArchivedUser

@BCGiant

I am sorry but why not just buy cash shop items with idk cash perhaps....

ArchivedUser

marketing? they are using the same model i would assume as gw2 does with its cash shop and costume without the other services and p2w aspects of the game. Having an incame cash shop and currency packs like 25 ember 50 ember and so on is no big deal. If they woul start offering services like xp booster or something, that would be an issue. But its def no sigh that the sub based model will fail.

ArchivedUser

But Embers are, as of now, only useful in the shop.
If Embers can't be used for anything besides the shop, there is no need for this topic.

I am lost. Your claim that you don't follow the cosmetic only mantra means that the only fact we know about Embers, as of now, is pointless in your discussion about Embers.

Whocando said:

an intermediary currency*  allows for a get out of subscription model free card.

It is basically a catalyst for a F2P conversion. (if the subscription doesn't work out)

I don't follow the 'cosmetic only' mantra so don't bother with it, it's not relevant to the OP

How is it a catalyst for free to play?

Embers don't allow you to buy a sub which is required because no free accounts.
Embers only allow cosmetics, which you can't get without a sub.

Azathoth said:

If Embers could be used for sub cost, in game shopping, or Embers were responsible for unlocking content (besides cosmetics) I would be more willing to jump on this particular wagon at this point.

I do see your point with Embers being a way to sink extra real currency into the world and get game currency out. As long as there is no reason besides cash-shop cosmetics for Embers and players don't start selling/buying to/from each other for in game currency or rl currency, I don't see an issue.

I mentioned this in support of where the topic was going. Now it's not going there?

Chuck-E-Cheese
To win prizes at C-E-Cheese you need tickets.
You have to pay to play the games to win tickets.
Having tickets doesn't allow you to play more games or eat pizza.

I am now on board with @Santy182, please elaborate.

ArchivedUser

they can't use the same model as gw2, the ability to exchange both cash and ingame currency both directions into GEMS* is p2w.

secondly gw2 is not a subscription game so by assuming the same model adoption you are clarifying my risk to subscription viability concerns.

Just because it's common market practice does not suggest it the correct system to incorporate.

ArchivedUser

ESO and crowns* basically killed the ESO subscription model.

ArchivedUser

well the fact that steven stated this game would never go f2p and never go p2w is besides the point. If IS would turn around and implement anything else besides cosmetic within the game they woul get a huge slash back from the community and hurt their own buisness. And at that point it would be really bad marketing on their part which i doubt they would ever do.

ArchivedUser

Could it be that the embers are there in part because of the referral system? Just a thought

ArchivedUser

If the subscription fails....
then Embers allow existing subscribers* a form of compromised compensation.

that is the risk.

they have implement a get out of subscription fail safe mechanism before the game is even live.

ArchivedUser

again if they get out of the subscription model they would have to add other things to the cash shop to fill that money void.

ArchivedUser

BCGiant said:

again if they get out of the subscription model they would have to add other things to the cash shop to fill that money void.

That's what concerns among other cumulative effects.

ArchivedUser

Like I sad if that would ever happen, the community themselves would destroy Steven Sharif and Intrepid Studios, because of the statements they made so often about never being p2w. As a businessman, i think Mr. Sharif knows a bit about marketing, and the no p2w is one of his biggest marketing statements. If he would turn around on that a shit storm with the size of the one that hit no man sky would come down on him and his game. So I doubt it will ever come to that.

ArchivedUser

Whocando said:

@BCGiant

I am sorry but why not just buy cash shop items with idk cash perhaps....

Maybe Embers will drop in game and you can earn cash shop currency without spending real cash?

ArchivedUser

Whocando said:

BCGiant said:

again if they get out of the subscription model they would have to add other things to the cash shop to fill that money void.

That's what concerns among other cumulative effects.

So are you against the currency and also against them implementing anything else? 

The company can't run on hopes and dreams. 

ArchivedUser

Crymoar said:

Whocando said:

@BCGiant

I am sorry but why not just buy cash shop items with idk cash perhaps....

Maybe Embers will drop in game and you can earn cash shop currency without spending real cash?

It's more likely you'll be rewarded with a small amount of embers as a loyalty reward for subscribing every month. 

ArchivedUser

I think you're being paranoid @Whocando building a safety net doesn't mean they will jump on it the first chance they get. That's like suggesting I plan to set my house on fire because I bought a Fire extinguisher. As @BCGiant has mentioned, they stand to lose much more money by doing what you are worried they will do.

ArchivedUser

Elder said:

Crymoar said:

Whocando said:

@BCGiant

I am sorry but why not just buy cash shop items with idk cash perhaps....

Maybe Embers will drop in game and you can earn cash shop currency without spending real cash?

It's more likely you'll be rewarded with a small amount of embers as a loyalty reward for subscribing every month. 

Or get embers from the referral system from people you referred buying stuff

ArchivedUser

A subscription is not "a hope and a dream"

an intermediary currency is insidious and greasy...

Loyalty rewards for subscribers* just lays a welcome mat for the f2p model.

It's not paranoia its market analysis and risk assessment.

It just shows Intrepid lack of confidence in the subscription model. thus lowering confidence in my funding towards a Subscription* MMO.

I was marketed the game not the income generation "join our already funded MMO"

But what ever, seems general consumer consensus likes bending over at the drop of a hat and I can't blame Intrepid for selling them hats then.

Clearly the game I invested into is not turning into what I expected...unsurprising unfortunately.

Gain money/Lose Respect. Just another day in the video game world.

ArchivedUser

You make a convincing argument, but I don’t want to think that Intrepid will go P2W. Steven has done his homework and knows what he wants in the game. The game will work because the community helped in its development and the game will fail if the community wants it to.

ArchivedUser

the issue does not effect p2w...off topic
and to be honest i am tired of hearing 'no p2w' being referenced at every occasion even if it is not relevant ..it's wearing out and becoming insubstantial.

just slapping (no p2w) on everything doesn't make it ok.

ArchivedUser

Maybe I misunderstood your original post. Could you tell me what you're concerned about?

 

ArchivedUser

If there was a fashion contest in-game the store would be p2w.


not much in other games I've seen beat what cosmetics are available on the stores compared to the armor you can get by just playing the game.