Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
We're arguing here in a circle. I'm no fan of ZoS so I'm not gonna defend them. They've made bad choices and some I dont remember well and some I do very well.
I'm here for AoC though because the conditions here, the company behind it, and the game ideals are very different.
Cosmetic shop as @Atama mentioned isnt going to go. Its like the node system for AoC. Its being built with a core design integrated with the game. So yes AoC cosmetic shop is a necessity. Its not like a background to change on a desktop.
Unless you generate revenue in the same way cosmetics do, its not going to happen. And definitely not without royally angering the community 3years on right now.
And also discrediting their entire word. Really bad way to start a company saying their aren't like the others is what you're suggesting simply out of rather selfish desire.
I dont neccessarily care that you want to aquire every cosmetic in the game. Its just not honest to call it pay to win. Because it fundamentally and objectively isnt.
I've seen real pay to win, on my death screens. If someone wants a rainbow shining out of their ass they want to pay for, I'm all for if it helps keep the game healthy on revenue to keep the other trash out.
I wish you were wrong. XD
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
Personally I think you could say the pay for convenience skill lines and skyshards are a little P2W. I reread your post and saw that you did say that. My bad I missed it on my first read through.
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
The power ups ESO offers through the crown store and almost consistently worse than their counterparts in the game. In fact most veteran players just delete them. The only thing that you can get that is comparable is the xp buffs.
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
Win condition for me: I already mention it before.
About ZOS: you jump from "But hell ESO was by far the worst launch MMO game I remember and yet now its one of the top three in the world" to "I'm no fan of ZoS so I'm not gonna defend them". You are in circle here.
"I'm here for AoC though because the conditions here, the company behind it, and the game ideals are very different
Cosmetic shop as @Atama mentioned isnt going to go. Its like the node system for AoC. Its being built with a core design integrated with the game. So yes AoC cosmetic shop is a necessity. Its not like a background to change on a desktop.
Unless you generate revenue in the same way cosmetics do, its not going to happen. And definitely not without royally angering the community 3years on right now.
And also discrediting their entire word. Really bad way to start a company saying their aren't like the others is what you're suggesting simply out of rather selfish desire.
I dont neccessarily care that you want to aquire every cosmetic in the game. Its just not honest to call it pay to win. Because it fundamentally and objectively isnt"
Ok...
"I've seen real pay to win, on my death screens. If someone wants a rainbow shining out of their ass they want to pay for, I'm all for if it helps keep the game healthy on revenue to keep the other trash out"
Ok...
Now that's your interpretation, I have mine.
Time, alone and without haste, will be in charge of revealing truths.
Talking about Eso isnt me talking in a circle. I made a statement comparing ESO to being one of the worst at launch as an example, and correlated to its success today as one of the top 3
Those are factually true statements that relate to my point saying even if Ashes has a rough start it doesnt mean much because it doesnt correlate to future success. How ESO achieved its succes isnt the same as Ashes will. Simply because they dont have anywhere the same business model or overbearing company board.
You're correct though that time will tell.
Interpretation in this area though is pretty concrete. Unless we want to start also re-defining what the sun and moon are and reverse the definitions.
That being said I did enjoy this conversation. And hope the game still lives up to your expectations
It seems fair to me.
I would like to know from your perspective, if AOC is not successful with the current model, what would be its alternatives to improve without breaking the promises made?
Taking into account their form of monetization is the sale of cosmetics, if the subscription model does not raise enough funds due to the lack of players and the sale of cosmetics is not enough, what would be the next step?
It would be interesting for me to know your perspective and discuss it.
All in all, it is a rough start if they only wanted to have a sub fee and no cash shop.
If 10,000 people paid $500 each (many didn’t, I didn’t pay the whole thing thanks to Early Bird) but say they did to make the math easy, that’s 5 million bucks. So I think it was a smart move in the short run at least.
But you are correct in the sense that without a cash shop they’d probably not get another dime out of people like me. As it happens I’ve bought a good number of things and most likely will continue to do so in the future. I’m a sucker for cool exclusives.
It is impossible for me to state the costs of the stretch goals but rest assured, it will be the subbers who fund Ashes in the long term, even with Cosmetic Sales. Even some KS Packages have lifetime cosmetic items too but one doesn't plan infrastructure on unknown quantities of cosmetic sales.
This would be getting into territory I'm unqualified and unexperienced enough to give input on since I'm no financial advisor. Nor do I have the costs information that Intrepid has and is projecting in order to determine an accurate guess for their future funding levels.
I can give my opinion and guestimate, but it should be taken with a hefty grain of salt.
I'll start with a top down brief overview before I give my suggestion.
What we know is that steven already fronted an estimated 30million of his own wealth. Much of that is distributed to the games development costs, technology/computers/specialized equipment to design and code the game world. The rest divies up between Infrastructure, company branding, licensing, salaries with employees, and server costs.
This is a simplistic overview, but we know the 3 additional million from kickstarter helped backer goals along with garnering some extra incentive cosmetics once people learned about the game.
Since we know the game is already fully funded for development and recieved a very generous backer donation (the largest in kickstarter ever to be accurate) the question becomes how much subs will cover the games costs?
To determine that we need to consider what is the yearly cost of the MMO itself from the companies pockets.
I dont have a reference point for this guess but I would imagine its likely a couple million a year to keep; the servers up, the utilities/bills that run the buildings for them, and pay the employees salaries, along with the sites, and all the associated maintenance that goes with all those things to pay to other companies that provide those services.
So for the first year AoC and Steven probably need to keep at least that amount in mind in accepting a negative cost on until the game is proven up and running and players have been given time enough to play it for the gaming world to determine its value. Generally a year is about the timeframe a game runs before alot of people get into it, if the games good enough. But thats just my estimate.
So if the game gets a good 50 thousand subs (not the backers, brand new subs) the first year then it's already on track. I imagine in that time we'll already know the issues AoC has and will need to fix that first year. Wether Intrepid will be able to cover the costs for the timeframe until AoC proves its a good game is an unknown to me. But Stevens about as smart as they come and he knows more about the industry than most people. And certainly more than me.
I already anticipate issues/bugs/launch issues with accounts. Its just unavoidable in my opinion. I could be wrong with Intrepid Studios since they have already proven me wrong with how fast their development has progressed. But when it comes to launch there are things you just cant simulate or know until thousands of players are actually interacting with the world and the servers are put into full-time running and calculating everything simultaneously. Live servers are the only way to know what you dont know.
Moving on.
So the subs will probably need to reach around 50 thousand subs or more to start to reach sustainable and profitable money levels to cover the couple million a year it'll cost to run what I mentioned earlier (that I estimate) again I dont have reference points its just an assumption because I dont know the standard full yearly costs of running an MMO including all the infrastructure costs maintenance.
The Cash shop will definitely help fill in and cushion a massive portion of the yearly costs since most cash shop items are the cost of the sub itself if not more than that. with a cash shop up depending on the number of subs, you already double your revenue close to what I equate the yearly costs of. This is where the portion of profits to cost ratio become important.
If the game cant reach 50 thousand subs (total) the first year the cash shop may or may not be enough to fill in the rest. I dont know since I am woefully ignorant of the costs Intrepid Studios has
Just making the game sustainable isnt a sign the games a success though, thats like living paycheck to paycheck to pay your rent but not buying food, healthcare, and everything else you need.
If the game cant reach the point where it can put money in "savings" (closest reference I could make) then here are my suggestions moving forward if the game needs longer than a year to fix its problem
1. Increase the price of the sub to $20.00 dollars
2. Create a box cost for the game with its sub. (not advisable because it creates a cost barrier but it may help if the game is good just slow attracting players)
3. Make the game better and eat the cost of the negatives until you fix the games problem and generate the correct level of profits to cost. Whatever that may be.
Thats really the only other choices I would implement if AoC wants to fit inside its Ethical goals.
I'm no MMO designer though. So my suggestions arent exactly professional. I'm just a gamer in this part of the topic.
I see this route as the game failing, though, whether it continues to be playable or not. Going F2P will go against the game’s core principles, because the sub is intended to keep out gold farmers, bots, and other toxic entities, and the studio pledged no P2W.
Going F2p with increased cosmetic options is indeed an undesirable option.
But you're correct it did save few of those games.
Botters are what create the pay to win aspect though in that scenario. Not neccesarily the cash shop unless the cashop sells convienence items to progress faster
I actually dont consider convienence items pay to win, but I fully understand why others do. I'm pretty sure Steven considers that p2w as well so it doesnt hurt me either way.
I prefer no convienence items and am glad hes against them.
- Braver of Worlds Early Bird 400usd package = 250
- 425usd Braver of Worlds Early Bird package = 350
- 435usd Braver of Worlds Early Bird package = 300
- 445usd Braver of Worlds Early Bird package = 300
- 455usd Braver of Worlds Early Bird package = 250
- 470usd Braver of Worlds Early Bird package = 300
- Braver of Worlds Early Bird 485usd bundle = 746
- Braver of Worlds 500usd package = 430
- 1000usd Leader of Men pack = 275
- Package of 2500usd Royalty = 58
- 5000usd Hero of the People Pack = 21
- Pack of 10000usd Avatar of Phoenix = 5
A total of 3,285 lifetime subscriptions which will not generate monthly income, this equates to about 591300usd per year without billing.
Taking into account that these sales represented a total of 1919310usd which can be taken as payment of subscriptions in advance, the total collected would compensate the lack of billing for a period of 3 years and 3 months from which lifetime subscriptions (taking as a reference a stable value of 15usd per month) would begin to turn into annual losses of 591300usd.
On the other hand is the referral system.
The system proposes the following: for each referred user who makes a payment, 15% of said payment is awarded in the form of a credit to the referrer.
Taking into account as a form of payment only the monthly subscription of 15usd, the referrer can accumulate enough credit to not have to pay the monthly subscription if he have 7 referrals paying their subscriptions.
15% of 15usd = 2.25usd x 7 referrals = 15.75usd
Enough to cover the monthly subscription for the referrer.
Therefore the formula is 8 - 1 (every 8 users, 7 pay and 1 does not).
The particular thing about this system is that if the referrals at the same time become referrer they can begin to generate credit in their favor, reducing the cost to pay of their own subscription and therefore reducing the profit generated for their referrer.
It is a model that, as it expands, adjusts the credits granted at the lower levels of the structure.
Different distributions of referents - referrals can be given, but in general lines and by way of example if we take a total of 1000000 users in said system and in all cases the previously proposed premises are fulfilled (chains of 8 - 1 and only based on subscriptions) we would have the following:
- 875,000 users paying the total of their subscription generating income for a total of 157,500,000usd per year.
- 125,000 users with a fully subsidized subscription representing a loss of 22,500,000usd per year.
This model aims to generate an increase in the volume of recurring users which should compensate the losses due to the bonus.
This increase in volume not only contributes to generating an active community, full servers and more publicity, but at the same time increases the number of potential consumers for the store, a complementary system introduced in AOC.
In summary, it is a model with a mandatory monthly subscription with a bonus system in search of overcrowding and complemented by a paid store which in general has a grace period of 3 years and 3 months from its launch to increase its user base in a substantial way to achieve the expected success.
If this is not achieved, it is evident that substantial changes are going to be necessary, changes that I fear will exceed the premises raised as the basis of the game.
For this reason, and as I have said before, the key is not to find the perfect payment model to offer, but rather in the quality of the product offered, since the industry has shown that the lack of quality is compensated by billing models that, although they can be sustainable leading to the creation of a product of very low standards.
Sustaining a base game and expansions payment model with mandatory subscription without stores for me is still the key to success.
The problem is that it requires a product of extreme quality, one that captures the attention of the general public, that offers quality in every aspect and maintains it over time, excellence in each system, each mechanic, each section, that respects the different styles of user, that does not violate the expectations of a group in search of financing the rest, a perfect gem.
That is why when I see that financing practices used harm the expectations of a certain style of players in search of billing models for me, it is a red flag.
Time will tell, AOC has already set its course, it only remains to wait and see its evolution.
Meanwhile I still enjoy sharing opinions about it!
This kind of goes against the way demands for goods and services goes though.
Sustaining a base quality good game without any profit cosmetic store to generate profit to cover rising and changing world expenses along with an increasing demand for skilled and competent coders make your ideal game into basically saying "hey heres 15 dollars I'm gonna take whatever product and however many products I want inside walmart, thanks see you later" and disregarded all the costs of the those products and all the employees and all the employees of the other companies selling the product in walmart, all the costs of infrastructure, and maintenance needed to keep "walmart" running properly.
You cant really expect an extreme quality product of near perfect design to come without also getting the most extreme quality skilled people to want to come work for you.
And those people will want a way to put food on their plates and make a good living my man. Its not like artists who make art just to inspire people sometimes. This is about the people at Intrepid who work to design and code shit for hours and make it as seamless as possible. And also making sure that Intrepid can pay its own bills while putting money into designing and hiring and expanding the game.
Incentive and rewarding pay is the only way to get good people on your team 9/10 times.
I dont know if this is a right assumption I'm about to make, but it feels like your against capitalism itself in a way.
I think you didn't understand.
What I'm saying is that the ability to generate a high-quality product, which includes as many styles of games as possible within the genre, which offers a high standard in each of its sections can:
- Obtain private financing (without financing through its consumers with kickstarter campaigns, foundations, exclusive benefit packages, etc.)
- Charge for the cost of the product developed to its users (Base game and future expansions).
- Charge for the cost of the online service to its users (subscription).
- Generate a stable base of at least 10 million users.
- Generate adequate and non-predatory profits.
All this without the need to use consumer money as a source of financing, without resorting to other types of billing models, abuse of P2W, etc.
For a product of these characteristics launched on the market and under these conditions, with a cost of the base game and future expansions of 60usd and a monthly subscription of 15usd, we would be talking about the following:
- Annual billing for subscriptions: 1,800,000,000 usd.
- Initial billing for the base game: 600,000,000 usd.
- Billing for each expansion added: 600,000,000 usd.
If a turnover of 2,400,000,000 usd in the first year and 1,800,000,000 usd in the subsequent years until reaching the first expansion and repeating the process is not enough then it is evident that something is not being done well.
Many companies have shown over time that quality is not strictly linked to the size of the infrastructures it owns or contracts, the size of its teams or its lobbying capacity.
They have also shown that to make money, be profitable and be successful, it is not necessary to abuse the user and seek disproportionate profits.
Small developers have managed to create higher quality products (with a lower budget and good profit margin) than the large ones on the market.
With this I say that it is simple?
Not at all.
With this I say that there are no risks?
No, it is a high risk market.
The question is, who runs that risk?
Who assumes the losses in case of failure?
Before and as in my opinion it is the right thing to do, there was a division between Investors / Developers and Consumers.
The first group had the funds, the capacity to supply, the idea, the project, the ambition, the obligation to promote, captivate, and the right to success and profits or the obligation to assume failure and losses.
The second group had the ability to demand, choose, the money to invest in exchange for a product and / or service offered.
Today that division no longer exists.
Users became part of the investment, promotion and even sales incentive group, reaching the point of assuming significant losses of money in the process.
Investors no longer want to assume losses even to the point of distorting the product or service in search of generating profits, using ethically reprehensible methods. They no longer seek to obtain a certain benefit from an offered product but instead use an offered product to suck as much money as possible from consumers. They no longer assume the absolute risk of loss, but rather share it with the consumer.
The developers are no longer the developers of the product but are the materializers of the demands of investors and consumers seeking to satisfy two totally opposite extremes, remaining at a point that in most cases does not satisfy anyone.
Before, the product was offered complete, finished and the consumer could evaluate if it met their needs before paying.
Now the product is offered before starting the creation process, it is not a product, it is an idea and the consumer not only does not have the possibility of evaluating something tangible but is also involved in the process in which they give money for something non-existent.
The result of this mutation, a market full to the extreme of very low quality products that in many cases end up canceled during their development or that they do not even manage to start and all generating losses in the consumers themselves who end up empty-handed.
From Turbine to Standing Stone Games.
DDO has a strong P2W presence.
To say that a character who uses mana and must manage her resources strategically among the Shrine has the same power as one who buys mana potions OP in the store ...
A wizard or sorcerer with these potions becomes a nuclear cannon.
And that's just to cite one of many options.
Lets forget the fact that you are trying to completely reorganize the financial model of an entire industry for a minute.
You are seeming to say that you think Ashes will get 10,000,000 core subscribers.
Even WoW never had that many. It had 12,000,000 at one point, but Blizzard were (at the time) counting every account that had been created, including trial accounts.
Ashes will have perhaps 500,000 core subscribers that pay every month, and more that subscibe more intermittently. The game will be considered a massive success in the industry if it manages this.
You also seem to be ignoring the fact that your stated win condition is to collect all usable cosmetic items in game, and yet there are cosmetics that will never be made available to you, due to never being offered up for sale again.
A much better goal would be to obtain a version of every cosmetic mesh, or look. This prevents you from obtaining multiple copies of teh same item but with different colors, and has the added bonus of being able to do it in game.
I agree, and so does Intrepid.
Every item in the cash shop will be available in game, just in different color variations.
I think it needs more than that to hit the "massive success" watermark. I believe the game can hit over a million at the start. The kicker is can it hold them.
If you look at a game like WoW, they claimed 12 million accounts, but had less than half of that pay subscriptions most months, some months it was as low as 2 million - especially between expansions.
Are you high? The word win - be successful or victorious in (a contest or conflict) OR acquire or secure as a result of a contest, conflict, bet, or other endeavor.
Pong. Two lines and a dot. This wasn't numbers, this was a virtual world full of possibilities.
Excluding what exactly. All you said is words don't have a set meaning and that video games shouldn't only be stat values oh and that video games aren't just numbers. You've not suggested any components of making a successful game. Who's pretentious and unrealistic over what point? Your not saying anything productive.
You're upset that how you enjoy playing the game isn't how others want to play? Honestly ? Is that what your saying?
Yea. You're upset you enjoy collecting cosmetics and making money isn't the same as people who enjoy topping DPS charts and min maxing gear. You're literally talking about people that are playing the game for different reasons.
Correct!... WHAT WRONG. Are you a moron? 'quality of life improvements" Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. If you pay real money and you get a noticaeable in game advantage for paying real money its P2W. There's NO ROOM for debating that.
My guess? Since you were in elementary school.
Ok... This isn't nonsense.
THAT'S LITERALLY THE POINT OF THE GAME
EVERY PLAYERS STORY IS UNIQUE
PROGRESSION ISN'T HANDED TO YOU
THE LATERAL PROGRESSION IS VAST
If you dont like guns you don't play CoD. If you dont want this exclusivity and uniqueness, leave.
You're giving skewed opinions on that payment plans mean for players.
As can be seen? You're being moronic you provided nothing but opinion.
Flawed, contrive and abuse able.
Your only putting a paywall behind a subscription. It's like you want Steven to just add extra paywalls for those willing to pay because you dont think P2W even stands for pay to win.
And you like collecting cosmetics, I've got it.
You're bullied because your DPS is trash and you have IRL money you want to use for an advantage in game and are upset when you spend your money people say your nothing but a RPer that likes to P2W.
I do feel sorry for you.
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.
[/quote]
My dude. OP thinks paying for cosmetics makes a game p2w.
Beyond the issue of why Cosmetics arent pay to win.
Your issue seems to be closer that there is the existence of a cash shop at all even if it's cosmetics that impact nothing within the game (other than your personal preferences).
I disagree that a cosmetic cash shop negatively impacts the game in any way shape or form.
Its the complete opposite to me. Heres why
Funding.
If you want to be successful and get more investors and get more talented people and more community and more EVERYTHING you need the purchasing power to make it happen. The only way that is possible is for your game to generate a positive revenue. The Sub doesnt really cut it when you're talking about maintaining a megaserver infrastructure and taking into account the 30Million dollars already invested in the game.
They need to make profit and show they can make up what was spent.
Therefore a cosmetic cash shop (only cosmetics) is the easiest and most succesful way to so do because it almost instantly doubles the revenue of however much your subscriber base is because people buy multiple cosmetics. Thats just how it is. People like to get multiple cosmetics.
And guess what all that funding determines
Employee salaries. (Except for companies like blizzard that pay their employes with ingame mounts and crap that THEY designed XD)
And I WANT Intrepid to make money, I want them to pay their employees damn good salaries. I want them to pay for good quality servers and good quality clients. I want them to have good computers and good internet services and all the good specialized equipments and designers for the game. I want them to make money to expand grow and hire people to give the game the support it needs to run smooth and have quality and fast customer support and services.
A cosmetic cash shop makes the game more successful IMO because it stays out of pay to win and makes the game better by making money and growing. You have to make money to get quality people.
This only becomes a danger if the Studio prioritized profits over the game.
But thats exactly why Steven began Intrepid in the first place. You need to understand that this is millions of dollars we're talking about and quality services and products directly correlate to quality employees and those employees will generally work where they get paid well.
Its like voice acting, it would make the game better but it costs money. Money wether you like it or not is just how the economy works for the world and the Company needs a hefty dose of it. And sustained growth of it
This means that no type of kickstarter or foundation program was necessary since the necessary funds were available.
However, with the premise of involving the community, the kickstarter program was created with packages of up to 10k usd granting exclusive objects, thus creating a gap between the community in the future.
At the same time it was established that the funds raised would be destined to the creation of additional content and not to the development of the original proposal.
In this way, a project with secured financing instead of developing its product and offering it began by raising extra funds from future consumers of the game, even before showing the bases of its proposal in operation.
This strategy opened the door to the micropayment store and the sale of cosmetic objects, all before having a playable and polished version to show to its consumers.
If we take the premise of the campaign and its purpose of involving potential clients in the project, this managed to attract about 19,576 patrons.
If we take the number of potential users for the first year (raised by other users in the last comments of this thread)
of 500k it can be deduced that they managed to attract 3.9% of said base.
A system of separation from the community was created (those who have and those who have not) collecting funds that were not necessary for the full development of the game and all for 3.9% of its future consumers.
It is obvious, that was only the beginning, the entrance door to the pay store and the sale of cosmetics.
Three years after this start, the sale of packages increased, this demand the creation of new dedicated and exclusive cosmetic models for that small initial % (plus those that were added from the web store), which implies labor time, resources and dedicated facilities.
Three years after this start, they still do not offer a playable version that shows all the promised game mechanics in operation.
Three years after this start and still fundamental aspects such as the combat system and the physics of movement remain unpolished.
From my perspective, taking into account that they had the necessary funds, they should have developed the product to achieve a version polished and complete enough to show to the public and with this achieve the effect of attracting consumers.
The factor of involving the community should have been from a participatory approach and not from billing.
The model should have been, payment of the game and future expansions and mandatory recurring subscription without any additional payments or store.
The way to sustain and finance a project is by attracting as many users as possible and maintaining them.
The way to attract and keep them is with a quality product that respects the different styles of players, not with microtransactions, exclusive packages and hype.
I understand that the creation of a store and sale of cosmetics is seen as a way to generate extra income to maintain the game and finance future content, but from my perspective this alienates a large number of players who do not feel comfortable with this type of models which in the long run ends up being counterproductive.
^ This.
Not sure if @Elder Soul is trolling or just like to make scatter-gun arguments. Either way I believe the cosmetics in the cash shop is more of a privilege for further supporting the game allowing people to show off exclusive content because they were there during the sale of the item and was in the position to get it. Having additional 'premium membership' fees to get access to all cosmetics would be horrible.
I dont know about others but I personally dont want a large amount of the player base running around with the same cosmetics. The ability to buy an exclusive skin for a premium is a privilege and a 'thank you' for further support towards the game at different stages throughout development and a subtle 'nod' or acknowledgement.
If you want all the skins save up