Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
pay2win is ok but intrusive p2w is not?!
leamese
Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Hey guys,
After ArcheAge im very susceptible to p2w mechanics. The following might be wrong wording from Steven. Quote from the letter: "A world where choice matters, where risk vs reward can be truly felt, and intrusive pay-to-win monetization has no place."
meaning normal p2w has a place?!
I know Ashes stance is against pay 2 win but please be clear in the wording so there is no other way to interpret it.
After ArcheAge im very susceptible to p2w mechanics. The following might be wrong wording from Steven. Quote from the letter: "A world where choice matters, where risk vs reward can be truly felt, and intrusive pay-to-win monetization has no place."
meaning normal p2w has a place?!
I know Ashes stance is against pay 2 win but please be clear in the wording so there is no other way to interpret it.
0
Comments
The only reward is a cosmetic, so its certainly "Pay to....."
Pay to not grind
Pay to not level
Pay to not deal with a BR mode
But in no way is it P2W.
The problem is you don't win points by quibbling and if the other guy thinks its pay to win, you're not going to convince him.
i agree, but still.
I have no problem with 'pay to look good'.
there will always be ways to interpret anything anyone says in multiple ways. Have you ever had a girlfirend? everything you say while she is in a bad mood can and will be used against you.
in other words you are reading into it what you want to read into it. I don't think Steven can stress enough the fact that he doesn't want there to be any P2W in ashes in any way shape or form. He has said it from day one and he has said it in every way there is to say it. he has even used examples of xp boosters, loot pets and inventory expansions as P2W.
Errrr.....GW2's shop is..interesting. Yes most of it is cosmetics and name changes, etc but there are also a ton of things in there that aren't directly pay2win but do contribute a lot to your overall progression. For example there are certain zones that are great places to farm rare materials, and these zones are locked behind the cash shop. There are things like unlimited gathering tools and supply dumps that can only be purchased through the cash store.
And of course on top of that you can buy in-game gold with real world money which I know some people really don't like. I think it just about works ok in GW2 but only because there are only 2 tiers of gear at max level (exotic and ascended), and getting the best gear isn't that hard, so everyone is on an even playing field from a power perspective.
There are certainly advantages to the GW2 system, the most important being able to convert in-game gold into gems (the currency used in the cash shop). This provides an everlasting gold sink for the game and prevents over-inflation since the devs can change the exchange rate based on real world finances.
If they work hard on making the unique cosmetics beautiful, and hide them behind paywalls, people wouldn't have any access to them without paying.
The game, to my knowledge, will be bought with an up front price and further paid for via subscription. I'm not at all certain they should have a cash shop at that point. At the very least, content for any such shop should be secondary to actual gameplay performance improvements and content.
Games fail rapidly because players are tricked into throwing money at cash shops for anything (cosmetics or "win" items). It makes for an incredibly boring experience when you can just open your wallet and look awesome. I'd prefer if the cosmetics were purchasable with in-game gold only, and maybe seasonally available. That would provide a fair money sink in the game, and also encourage players to actually PLAY the game.
Even a cash shop for cosmetics really takes away the value of earning customization options and the like. IMO there's no real difference between looking cool at level 1, or being insanely overpowered with epic equipment at level 1. Either way is skipping gameplay with cash.
@Undead Canuck The reason convenience is highlighted is that is the word that I used when searching for the quote to screenshot it. I agree, there are other words that have more importance in that one blurb, but that was the one that got me where I needed to be when searching for the quote.
Fair enough. I'm in a Relationship for 7 years now, maybe that's why I see it so 'precise'.🤔 I should relax..
Everything is ok. Shouldn't have made this thread In The first place.
The adjective may be redundant. If Steven believes all p2w is intrusive, then the adjective may be there simply for emphasis, not to serve as a distinction from other possible kinds of p2w.
"I hate filthy kobolds" doesn't necessarily mean I like or believe in the existence of kobolds who aren't filthy; the adjective may simply be used to emphasise my deep resentment or bigotry toward kobolds.
Rest assured, I just think Steven hates p2w with a passion
Yes yes true. It's says intrusive is not OK. But it doesn't say non intrusive is OK. Don't know where I got that from. Carry on guys nothing to see here 🤣
Roko? What happened to s... forgot the previous name...
I'm not one to assume anyone is lying at any given time, however those statements leave quite a bit unsaid.
Regardless, that leaves me with my personal opinion that there just shouldn't be a cash shop to begin with. Even an with upfront cost being questionable, a subscription likely means paying something along the lines of 12.99-14.99 a month for the game, and time being taken away from content FOR said game and put into additional sellable content for additional money.
It's still a reasonable statement "How does cosmetics impact gameplay" "it takes development time away from content we're already paying for, and puts it towards things we are to be tempted into paying for". Unless the cosmetics in question are fully obtainable in game, it's... less then horrible but still questionably bad business practice IMO.
With that said, I do not believe it will take away development time from content we are paying for. 1st because they have said they will be using those assets in the game in some form or another after they've had slight adjustments. And 2nd because the extra money they make off those cosmetics can go toward paying for more developers. Actually when you think about it, development time can actually speed up if they wanted, because they can afford more extra developers on top of the ones that make those assets.
just decided to stop displaying my username as soon as I got the option for security reasons d^_^b
That being said, as far as I can tell... "intrusive" is just there to add emphasis.
People can nitpick and flip out if they want to.
Nothing like not seeing what someone is wearing because they have fashion on. EEEEE
The only thing designing character models for the shop will take away from is develooing character models for the game. Since we know the models used in the shop will filter down to the game, there is no loss of development time at all for the game.
This is the only valid reason to oppose the shop in Ashes that I've ever seen - but it is such as edge case that I would not expect a developer to consider it.
I mean, I never see anyone going in to combat in gear that is 30 levels lower than then just because it looks good (form over function) - unless the game has appearance slots.
So what you're suggesting is a spiffy cloak in the cash shop doesn't require rigging, physics programming, rigorous testing for clipping, and other activities necessary to render an active CGI component in a moving breathing game world? It just requires someone to draw it?
...
1) Why would a character artist be completely unable to participate in a non-code oriented aspect of game development such as combat systems? They can think and offer input as easily as you can without a college degree in jibberish.
2) You're ignoring a tremendous amount of code that's necessary to add 1 article of clothing to the game. Some articles of clothing are super easy, they are just textures plastered over or attached to a character model, but even adding that second qualifier "attached to" means hours (if not days) of rigorous testing to ensure clipping is minimized, or the product comes out incredibly tacky and cheap. Not necessarily something you want to "sell" to players, is it?
3) Time spent creating cash shop items is money spent creating cash shop items. It only gets returns if the cash shop items in question are desirable enough to open up the wallet, and that means EXTENSIVE time and effort. I'd rather all that time and effort went into those items, and them all being added to expansions, or dropped into the game for us to find/buy with in-game currency.
The argument is against the idea of me giving them money so that they can use that money to make a thing that is meant specifically to tempt me into giving them more money. I gave them money, they can use THAT money to pay for extra development teams and what not. That's what that money is FOR.
If 10k people subscribe to a game that requires the subscription, that's 10,000x13$=130,000$ a month. That's the average YEARLY salary of 2 developers. That's just with 10k subscribers. MMOs are HUGE money makers when they operate on subscription.
And as I said before, I give them money. Why is my money going towards things that are meant to entice me to give MORE money, rather than towards things that entice me to play-the-game-more? It's backwards logic, the subscription platform only operates as long as players stay subscribed. So you put a cash shop in to cater to the short cut and encourage players to spend LESS time playing the game? For an upfront cost that ultimately leads (and has led) the game into early ruin.
Games that didn't start with a cash shop STILL have a subscription based platform and STILL make money, despite having been made before half the people reading this post were born. It's an incredibly stable business model for MMOs that ensures continues cash flow as long as you utilize that flow properly to encourage game play rather than encourage short cuts.
Again I'm not a fan of a cosmetic shop, but I'm just pointing out that a cosmetic shop doesn't mean your money is going toward it. The money they make on the cosmetic shop can pay for the developers that create stuff on the cosmetic shop. Also, most people spend more time playing mmo's to improve their gear instead of cosmetics, with only a few exceptions. The cosmetics on the cash shop are purely cosmetic, not much of a short cut. I know if I get great upgrade to my gear but it doesn't look as nice as the one it replaced, I'm still going to wear the better one.