Is the "Legendary" quest line a cash grab?

ArchivedUser

Xorgo said:

AlreadyTaken said:

My complaint is with the quest lines including lore/history. Not the cosmetics.

I agree. Cosmetics is one thing, but locking lore behind a paywall? Bad look. 

This is not a new thing. Guild wars 2 and other MMOs have been doing this for years. Thats not an excuse but let me give you an example. Most people who love and MMO look forward and will buy an expanstion. All Seasons/ledgendary quest lines are pieces of story that would normally be in an expansion but broken up into chunks and released earlier. This allows for players to get content quicker. Expansions are still released but tend to be less beefy and a bit cheaper since content is regularly released. The days of a game studio being able to survive on $15 a month are gone. That is an old 2000's model. 

ArchivedUser

UnknownSystemError said:

https://www.paradoxgaming.net/the-steven-answer

Maybe you should just make this link your signature with how many times you have needed to post it.     @UnknownSystemError

ArchivedUser

Personally I think its more than reasonable.  Apocalypse is free.  Everything you are earning in Apocalypse is cosmetics.

The only thing that I do agree that isn't a good look.. is putting lore behind the paid line.  Now I say this even though I get it for free, for life. 

The rest, exp bonus, extra cosmetics etc. is perfectly fine under the Legendary Line... after all its still all going in service to earning cosmetics. 

ArchivedUser

I think of it as being like the store. If you want extra cosmetics you pay a small amount.
Don't worry about the lore. I'm sure someone will make a thread here on the forums about anything that's discovered.  If not here then on the YouTube.  

And espeaking of lore, the cosmetic store for December already has some. Some dude went on an expedition to the frigid north. Maybe we find his bones or something. Undead sled dog pet. Something. Then Jeffy said there were barbarians on Sanctus. What? Were there people living there already when we evacuated? Hmm... Mysteries!
I think the lore will be revealed like that. In tantalizing tidbits attached to the quest items. Urlog's Medallion, Urlog's Compass, etc...

ArchivedUser

Archangelus said:

A) Apocalypse is not AoC and these quests are only for Apocalypse;
B ) The quests do not offer extra content, just more cosmetics;
C) This is just another way to support the game and it is entirely up to us if we want to do it or not.

So yeah, stop being a scab 

It's a quest line. Quest lines are content.

Whatever you think of this idea, you cannot argue that a "quest" does not count as "content" in a video game. Quests are one of the oldest and most traditional forms of content available in video games.

The reason I voted "wait and see" is because I want to see just how far they separate Apocalypse from the MMO. If this is too closely tied to Ashes (for example, if you can transfer earned cosmetics between the two games) then that would mean I would be paying a subscription fee to the Ashes MMO while also being forced to pay microtransactions to access quest lines that affect my gameplay experience in the Ashes MMO.

My subscription should pay for 100% of the questing content that affects the Ashes of Creation MMO. Not 'most" of the questing content, not even 99.9%, but the full 100%. Anything less is unacceptable.

ArchivedUser

Swash said:

Archangelus said:

A) Apocalypse is not AoC and these quests are only for Apocalypse;
B ) The quests do not offer extra content, just more cosmetics;
C) This is just another way to support the game and it is entirely up to us if we want to do it or not.

So yeah, stop being a scab 

It's a quest line. Quest lines are content.

Whatever you think of this idea, you cannot argue that a "quest" does not count as "content" in a video game. Quests are one of the oldest and most traditional forms of content available in video games.

The reason I voted "wait and see" is because I want to see just how far they separate Apocalypse from the MMO. If this is too closely tied to Ashes (for example, if you can transfer earned cosmetics between the two games) then that would mean I would be paying a subscription fee to the Ashes MMO while also being forced to pay microtransactions to access quest lines that affect my gameplay experience in the Ashes MMO.

My subscription should pay for 100% of the questing content that affects the Ashes of Creation MMO. Not 'most" of the questing content, not even 99.9%, but the full 100%. Anything less is unacceptable.

A quest to get 10 kills in the BR mode is such in depth content that even killing 10 rats can't compare....it's called a quest but it's more like a challenge, you won't miss anything, you want those 10 kills in the MMO ? then go pvp somebody,  your not actually finding any faults with what Intrepid are doing, you just make them up to have something to complain about. It's kind of pathetic when people nitpick like this.

Also the Apocalypse won't have any influence over the mmo, the cosmetics are the only thing and as far as I am aware cosmetics (or should I say re-skins) are not crucial to the mmo itself since you can earn cosmetics there aswell and even then they have no affect on gameplay.

ArchivedUser

Swash said:

It's a quest line. Quest lines are content.

Whatever you think of this idea, you cannot argue that a "quest" does not count as "content" in a video game. Quests are one of the oldest and most traditional forms of content available in video games.

The reason I voted "wait and see" is because I want to see just how far they separate Apocalypse from the MMO. If this is too closely tied to Ashes (for example, if you can transfer earned cosmetics between the two games) then that would mean I would be paying a subscription fee to the Ashes MMO while also being forced to pay microtransactions to access quest lines that affect my gameplay experience in the Ashes MMO.

My subscription should pay for 100% of the questing content that affects the Ashes of Creation MMO. Not 'most" of the questing content, not even 99.9%, but the full 100%. Anything less is unacceptable.

Just want to bite, but most games don't operate this way.  Your subscription doesn't mean you get 100% of the questing content or lore per say.  Most games I would guess have content outside of its game, WoW, Star Wars, Elder Scrolls,  etc.  There are books, side projects, other games, mini games newsletters or snippets that qualify as content.  If you are classifying a quest to get 10 kills as questing content then you're really reaching.

Your subscription does not entitle you to everything and everything that the Ashe's IP creates and makes.

ArchivedUser

In reading through the comments, I feel like some of the comparisons and justifications for Intrepid's monetization of Apocalypse are unfair. Comparing free to play games such as GW2 isn't the same. This game will be subscription based, like WoW. With subscription based games the content is paid for, by nature of the subscription.

The argument has been made that Apocalypse is not AoC, but rather a way for the developers to test combat and game functionality before release. If a company genuinely felt that pay to win mechanics were not part of their games monetization strategy, why would they include them in the early stages of the game development? Specifically, I'm looking at the +XP boosts in the legendary quest line. Locking content behind a pay wall in a beta is a new kind of cash grab that will only continue to be further exploited in the final product, should it prove to be successful.

By opting in to this paid content in the beta, we are setting a precedent that says its okay for the company to lock lore, quests, and other game content behind a pay wall. Imagine if you had to spend an extra $20 to unlock the pet battles in WoW, on top of your subscription. While we are able to play the beta for free, we are doing a service to the developer, helping them create a polished final product that will be paid for.

ArchivedUser

AlreadyTaken said:

In reading through the comments, I feel like some of the comparisons and justifications for Intrepid's monetization of Apocalypse are unfair. Comparing free to play games such as GW2 isn't the same. This game will be subscription based, like WoW. With subscription based games the content is paid for, by nature of the subscription.

The argument has been made that Apocalypse is not AoC, but rather a way for the developers to test combat and game functionality before release. If a company genuinely felt that pay to win mechanics were not part of their games monetization strategy, why would they include them in the early stages of the game development? Specifically, I'm looking at the +XP boosts in the legendary quest line. Locking content behind a pay wall in a beta is a new kind of cash grab that will only continue to be further exploited in the final product, should it prove to be successful.

By opting in to this paid content in the beta, we are setting a precedent that says its okay for the company to lock lore, quests, and other game content behind a pay wall. Imagine if you had to spend an extra $20 to unlock the pet battles in WoW, on top of your subscription. While we are able to play the beta for free, we are doing a service to the developer, helping them create a polished final product that will be paid for.

It has been said over and over again that the only thing getting monetized is cosmetics and we all knew about it from day 1, if Intrepid started going the p2w route (which they against) then they would lose 90% of the players.

ArchivedUser

AutumnLeaf said:

AlreadyTaken said:

In reading through the comments, I feel like some of the comparisons and justifications for Intrepid's monetization of Apocalypse are unfair. Comparing free to play games such as GW2 isn't the same. This game will be subscription based, like WoW. With subscription based games the content is paid for, by nature of the subscription.

The argument has been made that Apocalypse is not AoC, but rather a way for the developers to test combat and game functionality before release. If a company genuinely felt that pay to win mechanics were not part of their games monetization strategy, why would they include them in the early stages of the game development? Specifically, I'm looking at the +XP boosts in the legendary quest line. Locking content behind a pay wall in a beta is a new kind of cash grab that will only continue to be further exploited in the final product, should it prove to be successful.

By opting in to this paid content in the beta, we are setting a precedent that says its okay for the company to lock lore, quests, and other game content behind a pay wall. Imagine if you had to spend an extra $20 to unlock the pet battles in WoW, on top of your subscription. While we are able to play the beta for free, we are doing a service to the developer, helping them create a polished final product that will be paid for.

It has been said over and over again that the only thing getting monetized is cosmetics and we all knew about it from day 1, if Intrepid started going the p2w route (which they against) then they would lose 90% of the players.

Quoting the email regarding the Apocalypse open beta:

"There will be an optional Legendary Path that players can purchase.  Both paths provide daily quests and weekly quests for players to complete.  These quests give lore that relates to the story of Verra during the Fall, thousands of years before the start of the MMORPG."

If these quest paths are the same, and the only difference is the reward, then my point is moot. Based on the wording, that doesn't seem to be the case. Perhaps someone from IS would like to weigh in?

ArchivedUser

AlreadyTaken said:

AutumnLeaf said:

AlreadyTaken said:

In reading through the comments, I feel like some of the comparisons and justifications for Intrepid's monetization of Apocalypse are unfair. Comparing free to play games such as GW2 isn't the same. This game will be subscription based, like WoW. With subscription based games the content is paid for, by nature of the subscription.

The argument has been made that Apocalypse is not AoC, but rather a way for the developers to test combat and game functionality before release. If a company genuinely felt that pay to win mechanics were not part of their games monetization strategy, why would they include them in the early stages of the game development? Specifically, I'm looking at the +XP boosts in the legendary quest line. Locking content behind a pay wall in a beta is a new kind of cash grab that will only continue to be further exploited in the final product, should it prove to be successful.

By opting in to this paid content in the beta, we are setting a precedent that says its okay for the company to lock lore, quests, and other game content behind a pay wall. Imagine if you had to spend an extra $20 to unlock the pet battles in WoW, on top of your subscription. While we are able to play the beta for free, we are doing a service to the developer, helping them create a polished final product that will be paid for.

It has been said over and over again that the only thing getting monetized is cosmetics and we all knew about it from day 1, if Intrepid started going the p2w route (which they against) then they would lose 90% of the players.

Quoting the email regarding the Apocalypse open beta:

"There will be an optional Legendary Path that players can purchase.  Both paths provide daily quests and weekly quests for players to complete.  These quests give lore that relates to the story of Verra during the Fall, thousands of years before the start of the MMORPG."

If these quest paths are the same, and the only difference is the reward, then my point is moot. Based on the wording, that doesn't seem to be the case. Perhaps someone from IS would like to weigh in?

Yeah here is the thing until we actually SEE how it all works we can't really say that lore will be locked behind the legendary path because just like you quoted it says that Both paths provide not just the legendary.

Honestly it's best to wait for it to be released within the next few days instead of jumping to conclusions.

ArchivedUser

To be honest I see a lot of people jumping and raving about something that has yet to happen, IF we do not get Ashes of Creation as promised, or it becomes a P2W game or cash grab then you can get the pitch forks out, this has not happened yet so you all need to chill.

The only mistake I can probably see that IS may have made right now is the "branding" of Apocalypse, as they state, it is a testing ground for AoC but otherwise it is a standalone game that in no other way really impacts the MMO we all want except that it contains lore from the AoC world.

So in my eyes the only mistake they may have made is calling it "Ashes Of Creation: Apocalypse" .. this is because people refer to "Ashes Of Creation" as the MMO that has yet to be released, but now some people seem to see this name and think, wait a minute, AoC is supposed to be an MMO, why is it now labelled as a BR  with a paywall, ect.. WTF?

I undertstand that Apoc is a part of the AoC universe and not sure how else to brand it, maybe just to refer to Ashes Of Creation only in it's abbreviated form? "AoC Apocalypse - the fall of Verra?" this provides some sort of divide from the MMO title?

All in all I am in complete support of anything that will make Ashes Of Creation a better game, and until I see actual proof that the MMO is suffering serious neglect or IS starts to abandon their principles then there is no need to rage or vent. 

ArchivedUser

Can anyone actually give us the logic behind saying that Apocalypse is pay to win?
How can you win?  It is a Battle Royale game.  The only way you win is to be the last one standing.
Nothing in the rewards gives you an edge in the battle.  And before anyone mentions the XP boosts, those are for Apocalypse, and only let you level there (looks like just in the lobby).  Levels mean nothing in the battle.  Only equipment affects your ability, and you have none until you are actually playing and find some.

ArchivedUser

Well the 15$ a month subscription is suppose to be for the server cost, nickle and diming people in a sub game is not looked on kindly. When it comes out I'll just watch streamers and see how long it lasts. So I can document the rise and fall.

ArchivedUser

Good for you? You should have years of free entertainment watching others have fun while you sit outside in the cold with your grubby face pressed up against the glass drooling over all the sweets in the shop window.

ArchivedUser

UnknownSystemError said:

Good for you? You should have years of free entertainment watching others have fun while you sit outside in the cold with your grubby face pressed up against the glass drooling over all the sweets in the shop window.

I hope I see you on NA servers dude because we would just have a ball killing everyone that just isn't right in the head   If you will not be in NA servers then it will be our loss of a fun person to have around

ArchivedUser

InquisitorHeldricht said:

Well the 15$ a month subscription is suppose to be for the server cost, nickle and diming people in a sub game is not looked on kindly. When it comes out I'll just watch streamers and see how long it lasts. So I can document the rise and fall.

In the December 6th stream, Steven says $10 for 10 weeks. (At about the 35min mark.)  Honestly that's cheap.  I can find $1 a week  by picking up change off the ground.

ArchivedUser

Yeah, I'm not sure of the point @InquisitorHeldricht was trying to make either. For $15/month people will enjoy playing a game that may or may not rise and fall. Your goal would be to watch others playing and having fun and then celebrating when and if it fails?

It's a shame really, seems like you would meet the standard member criteria and be an excellent addition to the community.

I hope you can find a game that doesn't require the small sum of about $0.50/day to play.

ArchivedUser

Is there an NDA? If yes, then please delete this post. If not, then you should be able to figure out how it works from this screen capture. I made it in today! Yay!!!!

ArchivedUser

I vote no, but without insult.

Folks are getting access to a game APOC for FREE.

Folks who want to earn cosmetics and learn lore for the MMO now, can, but unless they've supported the game to a certain level already, will have to pay for that privilege.

But they'll still likely pay less for earning 80 cosmetics than they would pay in the mmo cash shop.

ArchivedUser

AlreadyTaken said:

If a company genuinely felt that pay to win mechanics were not part of their games monetization strategy, why would they include them in the early stages of the game development? Specifically, I'm looking at the +XP boosts in the legendary quest line.

The xp is for gaining access to... cosmetics. It is P2W because some people gain cosmetics? That seems to be your argument here.

ArchivedUser

ArchivedUser

We need something funny in here.

CHECK THIS OUT: http://www.cracked.com/blog/how-to-win-fight-against-twenty-children/

ArchivedUser

Out of curiosity, will the siege and horde mode contribute towards the cosmetic unlocks? If that is the case then I guess I'll be unlocking them regardless of my feelings towards the legendary path. If not... well then I'll be pissed because BRs are a fad I don't enjoy and won't play.  

ArchivedUser

Has anyone even figured out what the "legendary path" will be purchasable with yet? It doesn't specify in the email are we all just assuming cash? Or will there be an earnable currency in apoc that we can spend?

ArchivedUser

InquisitorHeldricht said:

Well the 15$ a month subscription is suppose to be for the server cost, nickle and diming people in a sub game is not looked on kindly. When it comes out I'll just watch streamers and see how long it lasts. So I can document the rise and fall.

The $15 sub cost is for Ashes of Creation not for Apoc.. that argument is invalid in this context. Your being given a free "Open beta" for Apoc with a buy in for some extra shineys if you so choose.

ArchivedUser

OOOH this is in apoc..OOOH...dont say a word to me or my son.

ArchivedUser

Castle Siege and Horde Mode will also have quests that include the Legendary path. Yes.
Embers unlock the Legendary path. Pretty sure we can earn embers in the Adventure path, but I need to double check once we can enter the lobby again.