Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
Perfect, now you are understanding the concept of P2W regarding cosmetics and the difference between the amount of money invested vs access to exclusive objects.
Unlike the predatory model of origin, my proposal offers much more economically viable alternatives.
It is obvious that it is impossible to eliminate the P2W factor while this content is hidden behind a paywall.
As a reference to my interpretation and so that you understand how we got to this point, let me bring you different articles written about it:
https://www.escapistmagazine.com/v2/cosmetic-microtransactions-devalue-gamings-artistic-integrity/
http://mediahsba.blogspot.com/2018/05/game-monetization-cosmetic-items.html
And these are just some of the many reference contributions about what I try to convey in my thread.
You missed the point of my post entirely. I do NOT agree that cosmetics are pay-2-win in any way.
I was merely pointing out that your proposal is, by YOUR OWN logic, "pay-2-win," as you seem to consider that term. Your proposal simply flips it such that anyone who wanted to use your idea, were the ones "paying to win" instead of someone who uses the cash shop as it is currently implemented.
Of course it is P2W, but in a much less predatory way.
It is obvious, as I already mentioned that once it has been determined that cosmetic objects can be used as a source of income, there is no way to eliminate the P2W aspect, only to mitigate the economic abuse exerted on them.
If it were up to me, no type of extra payment should give exclusive access to cosmetic content.
My vision is that everything that can be used and done within a game has to be achieved by playing and not with additional payments.
Cosmetics, music, maps, expansions, boosters, power-ups, titles, pets, mounts, materials, etc.
Nothing should be awarded in exchange for extra payments.
You pay for the designed game and online service, period.
All content to be acquired must be obtained by playing.
Taking into account that AOC has a mandatory monthly subscription payment system of 15usd and its intentions are to create one of the most successful games on the market, we are going to be generous and we think that at the time of its launch it has about 2,000,000 of active accounts.
That's about $ 30,000,000 per month of revenue, just on subscriptions, $ 360,000,000 per year, and all for an initial investment of $ 30,000,000 or $ 40,000,000.
Enough to recoup the initial investment, keep the game online and finance the next content expansion.
Is it necessary to charge fortunes for cosmetic objects?
Now if the game thinks about having a population of less than 2,000,000 active accounts or it does not reach that number or exceeds it, I think it is clear that it is not what it pretends to be.
A quality game, which was conceived to revolutionize the genre and dominate the market that does not reach those values or exceed them, it is clear that it failed in its objective.
And as if that were not enough, a game that has been in development for years and argues that it does not need funds since they are covered to guarantee its completion and that at least 2 more years ahead until its launch, it is already profiting from cosmetic objects through Packages of up to 375usd for exclusive items is not a sign that something is wrong, I don't know what might be.
I am not saying that the game is not going to end as promised.
What I'm saying is that they missed a unique opportunity, to create a huge game, without funding problems, with interesting subscription billing and avoiding creating extra paid content, and they didn't.
They showed disinterest in those who see their gaming experience affected by the extra transactions in exchange for exclusive items.
And they have every right to do so, but if they put aside the interests of a part of the community at the same time that they intend to summon all of us to be part of it, at least respect the right to have a different opinion and present a valid vision.
Please just stop with this absurdity. They didn’t “miss out” on cosmetic collectors. If want every cash shop cosmetic for some reason, buy them all. If you don’t want them, don’t buy them, and enjoy the in-game comparable items you’ll be able to get completely for free.
These cosmetics are packaged with testing opportunities, game time, and currency that can be used later, it’s not paying $375 for a cosmetic.
If you don’t want the parts that are in there to support the game development and provide feedback to improve upon the creation process, then don’t get them. The packages that are there specifically to facilitate people who want to support the game with their money and their time.
First, for me supporting someone does not represent the opportunity to gain an advantage or something in return.
True support is selfless.
Investing 375usd as a form of support without receiving anything in return is fine.
Investing 375usd as a form of support when at the same time I am receiving exclusive benefits makes it somewhat murky.
On the other hand, if cosmetics are important to my gaming experience and as you recommend, I have to invest extra money to get them, is it not a clear P2W?
For me it is clear and I think that with the links provided it is shown that I am not the only one who thinks that way in the world of video games.
It is understandable that in the forum of a game that has not yet been released, there are many users who strongly support the project and its decisions, especially when some even own such exclusive benefits since they bought packages of cosmetics and exclusive benefits.
This does not mean that out there, the market of potential clients is not full of people who think like me.
People that Intrepid unfortunately did not take into account when designing its payment model and access to content.
Again, they have every right to determine what is okay and acceptable and what is not.
My input is to tell them that their desire to create the largest gaming community is unfortunately limited by their decisions and actions.
I would love if we could go back in time when the best MMORPGs had no Cash Shops, no P2W and only a monthly subscription, but unfortunately we can't (and I'm not even sure if it would be financially possible to do that today).
Exactly, unfortunately it is too late to avoid P2W aspects without collateral effects.
As I mentioned earlier, they missed the opportunity to create something unique, to go back to the roots of video games.
It is true, any change at present would be to betray those who clung to the initial proposal, on the other hand, not doing so also represents a risk in the medium or long term in front of new or affected players.
A game that does not offer fair conditions reduces the possibility of incorporating the widest possible spectrum of players, this affects the general population and therefore limits its expansion capacity.
A low abundant population eventually ends up harming the development of the game, causing its deterioration and subsequent decline into oblivion.
It is where the following question arises, what use are the cosmetics, titles and exclusive benefits in a game that has no future?
The profitability and success of a product must be linked to its quality and ability to captivate the consumer and not to manipulative market practices.
I believe that it is possible to create a quality and profitable MMORPG with a monthly subscription model and without additional payments, what I do not think is that it fits the current business model.
Videogames went from being the project of a group of entrepreneurs who love the genre to becoming a business focused on investments and profits, they went from being led by creative minds and lovers of art and entertainment to being managed by CEOs who are experts in finance and markets, investors in search of obscene profits and strategists in the psychological manipulation of the consumer.
And what better for this purpose than to create a model in which the consumer community itself is divide and rejects those who are affected, declaring it ethically correct and acceptable?
The perfect Trojan horse, it is no longer the company itself that has to defend the model, it is part of its consumers who do.
This is the reality of the market these days, but how to blame the market if it responds to the demands of part of its consumers?
If a model thrives, it is because in part it is in demand.
It is partly the fault of the consumers that out of weakness or necessity allowed that a place of entertainment and recreation become what we have today.
My proposal tries to find a middle point, where everyone wins and loses at the same time and not to perpetuate a model where the frustration of some serves to finance the fun of others.
And this is the accurate definition.
No, it is an accurate statement. Not a false one. When you just start making up your own definitions for things not accepted by anyone else, you've lost the ability to communicate.
I can define "P2W" as, "I pay money and now I am the ruler of my own real life country." And since no game offers that, I can conclude that no game is P2W. But that's ludicrous because I am using my own made-up, useless, nonsense definition.
Here's all that matters... There is a definition of P2W that Intrepid sticks to, that's the definition that they mean when they say they pledge to avoid P2W, and that's it. It also happens to be what the rest of the world means by P2W. If you want to define "win" by having an appearance, okay, you do that, but don't point the finger at Intrepid and claim they're failing by some measure you invent, and don't go calling the game P2W when it isn't.
You are literally inventing your own personal problem, painting it onto the game, then advocating a solution when the problem doesn't exist.
It's nice not having a box cost. Lowers the barrier for entry. It's a simple $15/month...which is about the cheapest hobby you'll ever find. And the game either stands on its own and people keep paying, or it doesn't.
You are clearly of the opinion that selling cosmetic items is pay to win. You can have your opinion of what winning is. However, as defined by IS, there will be no method of paying for items that give you any kind of game play advantage. Cosmetic items are not viewed as giving a game play advantage.
None of your issue about defining cosmetics as pay to win really matters though. It is clear that your intent is to rewrite the system of paying subscriptions and buying cosmetics into something that you like more.
It appears that you thought you needed to redefine cosmetics as pay to win to support your cost preference. I suppose that you could suggest the payment plan without arguing over what is pay to win in order to get a meaningful conversation about whether optional payment plans that include access to the cosmetic shop are a good idea.
Approaching such a topic from the standpoint of it will be beneficial to IS to do so may be more productive than starting with a fight. You could point out that many people paying a higher monthly sub may yield higher revenue than having a small number of people pay a high price for individual cosmetics.
I have to argue your declaration that cosmetics are P2W. If you can't win with cosmetiocs then how can they be P2W?
That is what you said, right? In a round about way.
Whether you go with a basic look or you buy every item in the cosmetics store, your ability is defined by skill and what you acquire from normal progression.
I do think you are overthinking things.
I think ideas should be free to suggest. As much as some of us want some of the newer ideas to go the way of the dodo, having Ashes be a closed discussion is bad for the game.
Everyone is free to reply with how much they don't like an idea.
... Kind of like how I'm free to suggest the idea is a wasted one. Funny how that works.
Is that not precisely what I did? My words were chosen very carefully to express exactly how I feel about the idea.
What is undeniable is that the cosmetic aspect is always part of video games, part of the goals and objectives, rewards for achievements and effort, anyone who is from old school knows it.
The concept of "they are only cosmetics" is an invention of the industry in search of generating easy profits at the lowest investment cost and which was accepted by the new generations of players convinced that it is something harmless and necessary to finance any project.
Cosmetics for money are P2W, not for many of you of course, but for many other yes it is.
It is accurate to say that a small subset of the playerbase puts a higher degree of importance on looks, but that is a small subset of players.
Is an advance. We have already gone from denying the importance of cosmetics as part of the gaming experience, objectives or goals to recognizing that in reality it is important and fundamental.
As for the size of this population of players, well it is something difficult to estimate since there are many who were trapped by the payment system and practically no longer remember what it was to acquire cosmetics for achievements in the game.
But if it is true that there are many or few, that does not change the reality that P2W exists.
That is not what @noaani said. Placing a higher degree of importance on something doesn't mean that doing so makes something pay-2-win.
As @Atama said:
You cannot just arbitrarily make up your own "win" conditions, then apply those conditions to something someone else said. So, if you want some exact quotes:
If they don't grant any benefit, then they don't fall under Steven's definition of pay-2-win. You cannot put words in someone else's mouth based on your own way of thinking, and expect it to be true.
You suggested the thread be locked up and the key thrown away. Perhaps you were being tongue in cheek, but the fact you used no emotes to clarify that meant I took your reply seriously.
Yes, it was a bad idea, but bad ideas can, and will, promote good ideas through discussion.
I am sooo sorry. I was totally agreeing with you (just edited the original). The 'you' I was using was the OP (If you were developing a game, I would definitely be there as you have a good grasp of how things should work...
So my question is why are you still here? Why are you following this game? Steven isn't changing his mind. Why are you supporting a game that is so clearly P2W? Especially seeing how there are other games out there that aren't.
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
"You cannot just arbitrarily make up your own "win" conditions"
It's exactly what the industry did.
Take away a central part of the experience of achievement, merit and success in video games, allocate it to exploitation in exchange for extra payments and declare and promote that it is okay to do so because they are only cosmetics and are not part of the concept of winning.
Sorry but if they can do it, so can I.
This isnt a pageant where the game gives you a reward for looking a certain way, or leaderboards, or anything else.
All cosmetics do is change what pixel textures are on whatever character you are on.
This isnt about pay to win. This is a question about a concern that you need to pay to look good. That is something we dont know yet but I doubt Steven hasnt already addressed it somewhere already.
The definition of "win" has to have a correlating ingame function within the mmo via a ranking or PvE/pve item that gives you an advantage to progress further than someone who does not use the cash shop at all.
Example. If I create my own costume and I prefer it over having the other ingame cash shop costume its entirely subjective on that persons point of view but it doesnt have an ingame effect on any leaderboard, rank, item, or game function.
I might think everything you put on is ugly compared to my level 1 armor base game crafted. It doesnt change anything within the game.
This is why it objectively cannot be pay to win and you're using a term as a veil to generate more conversation as click bait
/facepalm
It doesn't work like that, sorry.
"Arbitrarily make up your own condition" does not refer to something "the industry" did or didn't do. It refers to you making a condition based on your own ideals, and trying to apply it from outside the "system" - which in this case is Steven's definition of what is considered pay-2-win.
If Game X was created that considered cosmetics to be pay-2-win, then for that specific game, your argument would be valid. But just because Game X considers them pay-2-win, doesn't mean Game Y does. Your argument is not valid for Game Y.
And that's the last post I'm gonna make here. Since you can't seem to understand that basic concept, there's no point in continuing.
The industry creates a product with actual defined areas that reward to the player for doing ingame functions and content as well as collaboration to achieve X item or win X castle.
What you purchase, or dont purchase, does not impact any area in the game. It does not relate to items, it does not affect your damage/healing/tanking within the game. It does not show up on a leaderboard, there is no npc that comments your looks and gives you more gold for it, there is no house rewards for your costume, there is no title you get for looking fabulous.
There is no objective way to call this pay to win. There is nothing you are winning.
Call this what it is, clickbait. And ask the real question. Pay to Look good
Pay to win is a well defined term in regards to gaming. You don't get to change what a term means just because you have a non-standard goal in a given game.
This pretty much.
Its like me calling myself an attack helicopter (yes Im going to bring up the identity politics as a reference point) just because I dont like what attack helicopters actually are.
Or better yet. I dont like the x and y chromosomes defining what body parts are so I'm going to rename the body parts so that I can fit the definition of chromosome to what I think the body part should be called.
From that perspective it is impossible to understand.
And they do it because the Industry decided that it should be so, it makes it convenient to be able to generate a source of extra income.
Selling parts of the game that should be acquired for merit, achievement and dedication through additional payments.
Again, I understand that the Industry exploits this type of practice as it is extremely profitable.
I also understand those who defend it, years have passed since this model, which is not the original, was raised, that generates new generations of consumers used to seeing it as something normal.
I also want to make it clear that my intention is not to change the perception that everyone has regarding P2W, only to share mine and defend it with fundamentals.
Cosmetics for money, from my point of view and that of many others (you can see the links that I contribute so that you see that I am not the only one who thinks this way) are a clear P2W.
In order to convince us that your perspective is not flawed, you need to convince us that appearances are actually a form of "winning".
The first step to that is to provide us with a singular objective goal that defines this type of "win".
If you can't do that, you have no argument.