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
Now, you have a point and I respect this aproach.
The proof of having read the contributions before drawing a conclusion.
(takes off hat and curtsies)
What is shown in these contributions is how they profit from a fundamental part of cosmetic objects.
But if what the audience demands is direct proof of the feeling in other players about the P2W aspect, well let's see:
https://www.reddit.com/r/truegaming/comments/a4n3sg/why_do_people_who_hate_microtransactions_accept/
¨This is the best answer here and is the truth. Microtransactions have slowly trickled their way from moblie games into console/PC games. I cringe every time I see people say "microtransactions are fine only if its cosmetic". Its so stupid. The time and effort it takes for them to develop the items, they can easily just not put up a paywall.
I really feel conpaines use microtransactions as a way for a game to break even with profits even if it the sales are extremely low. It's a fail safe system that's a win win.¨
¨You're assuming that all people think the same way, when they don't. Some people care immensely about what they look like in a game and want whatever they think is the coolest looking skin for their character. Others, do not care at all what their character looks like, and are only interested in different clothing options when they offer in game stat buffs.
Games have several options when it comes to what to sell people, and they vary based on what they are. But many of these options simply aren't viable, depending on the type of game. Assuming we're talking about a primarily online multiplayer game, and it's impossible to sell any kind of DLC, making new maps or modes that aren't free just risks splitting the player base between the haves and the have not's which means less people for people to play against, making matchmaking harder, and if match making is harder people are less likely to play.
Likewise, you could sell weapons, but it's a very fine line to tread. If the weapons are too effective compared to the default ones, the people who don't pay will be pissed that the game has become "pay to win", but if the weapons aren't effective enough, no-one will buy them. Hence selling weapons is often avoided, bar games where there are millions of weapons permutations, which is extra work for the devs to do.
Which just leaves cosmetic items. Skins are often the ultimate prize because they're immediately visible at all times when the player is on screen. Sprays require a surface to put them on that others will look at, taunts mean the player has to be watched, weapon skins are often too small to be seen in a fight, and everything else is often just secondary to costumes. Meaning the player that wants to stand out will go for skins first.
As for the reason why, the answer is simple: Money. Publishers make more money selling skins rather than just giving them away as unlockables.¨
¨No idea. Pisses me off to no end. Skins when I grrew up where the rewards in a game. I played guild wars and cod mw2 specifically. Also, css, which had client side mod support for skins. I can't stand "it doesn't effect the gameplay". Yes, it directly affects the gameplay. In fact, it takes an entire part of the game out. The customization part, the reward part, the completionist part, the creative part. It's the one thing that's driving me away from gaming, because these things were so important to me. Anyone know any recent games I might like?¨
¨They can still just make a complete product and sell it. You know, like every other industry has since the invention of currency.¨
¨I'll admit I have a bit of a double standard in accepting cosmetic microtranactions for free games of most genres.
However I draw the line with MMOs. When cosmetics in an MMO are paid it just sucks out so much of the joy for me. No one looks special anymore because you just assume anyone looking fancy got there with a credit card and further more games like that will make all the default free gear look like ass¨
¨I wouldn't play an RPG with microtransactions since customizing your character is a significant part of the game, but who cares in a game like CSGO or Overwatch?¨
¨I accept "cosmetics" because, well to be honest, cosmetics don't matter to me. Thats not something that bothers me so it isn't something I think about.¨
¨I don't accept any microtransactions. They are taking away value from their product and then when they don't fuck over the gameplay/progression, instead they fuck over bonuses and customization, something that used to be part of games until companies realized they could massively increase their profits by putting in these shitty practices.¨
¨They accept it because they are morons who cannot understand that this shit exists and is abused because they keep enabling these shitty companies. It's the reason why we used to have cheat codes for free, but now you need to pay to have "easy fatalities" in MK9. If people didn't pay for any of that crap, they wouldn't be doing it so much.¨
¨For me how my character looks has a significant effect on my enjoyment of a game. In Dark Souls, Skyrim etc I like to look the part. If I wear goofy armor or look like a jackass it takes me out of the game.
And when I finally get that cool/badass armor set it feels awesome and I feel awesome wearing it.
I hear people say that cosmetics have no real value/worth within the game so it's OK to sell them. But if they really have no value why would anyone buy them? That makes no sense. The fact that people are willing to shell out for them proves that they have value.
I love costumes in games so it really bothers me when people advocate selling them as MTX. I miss the olden days when we could unlock cosmetic stuff through gameplay.¨
¨They do affect gameplay directly. They remove rewards, prestige and horizontal progression. They remove long term reasons to keep playing the game. They remove customization and creativity in the game. They give the devs more of a reason to make more cosmetics than focus on gameplay improvements.¨
This in a single point of reference, of course in the network there is much more, it is only a matter of searching, the evidence is there waiting to be seen by those who do not lock themselves in their only vision and allow themselves to see that of others.
If I want to buy an outfit, I don't want to buy a whole tier of outfits.
Imagine that a game developer was presenting two upcoming games and that these two games were identical in every way except for one difference in monetization. The first game was going to cost $60 and there were going to be no microtransactions whatsoever. The second game was only going to cost $55 but everyone's stats were going to be 10% lower unless you paid an additional $5 for an item in a cash shop. Most people will label the first game as having no p2w elements while describing the second game as being very clearly p2w even though the end result is that in both games you have to spend $60 to unlock what you would consider to be the full gameplay experience.
In the same way that you consider anything related to in-game combat stats to be part of the full gameplay experience @Elder Soul considers having the ability to acquire any cosmetic that they might be interested in as being part of the full gameplay experience and they are upset that in order to have what they consider to be part of the full gameplay experience they would have to spend significantly more money than just the $15 subscription fee. They are making EXACTLY the same argument that you would be making if Intrepid was selling in-game stats in the cash shop they just care about different things which leads them to have a different opinion about what they consider to be the full gameplay experience.
While I personally do not care overly much about a cosmetic only cash shop @Elder Soul is not "objectively wrong" as many people in this thread are saying and they are not any more delusional than any of the other people making suggestions that are almost certainly never going to be implemented.
Sorry bro but if you measure yourself to other people based on cosmetics, there is something internally wrong with you. You couldn't be further from understanding what they are doing with AoC if you tried it seems. Pay to win is getting an advantage over others using real money (which isn't fun and causes games to die). If you truly and honestly feel that you have an advantage over someone because your hair is now purple and you get a brighter blue cape......please just rethink your values in life.
My point is, instead of limiting access to cosmetic items to the purchase of a bundle and then to individual payment for each future cosmetic within the Tier unlocked by the bundle reaching ridiculous sums of money compared to the cost of a full set. AAA, implement a system with a more logical and standardized cost that allows access to all cosmetic objects divided into 2 Tier without the need for individual payments.
My wish is that there are no micro-payments of any kind, I am in favor of paying for the game and the subscription, but understanding the proposal to avoid the payment of the game to facilitate the entry of new players and understanding the need to bill enough to compensate this is that I propose a model that allows generating more income as compensation without becoming abusive, leading the company to a billing model that is not only not designed to compensate for not billing the game but its purpose is to squeeze amounts of ridiculous money at the cost of damaging the gaming experience of a significant part of its potential consumers.
The video game industry, specifically in the field of cell phones, has shown that microtransactions are much more lucrative than charging for the product or service offered.
This did not go unnoticed by the gaming industry for PCs and consoles, who, hungry to eat part of that cake, were twisting the concept of winning, being equitable or fair, that it is good and that it is not to mold in their consumers the idea that it that they do this justified, that it is necessary and they have to support them.
Nothing is further from reality, it is not a model necessary to survive, it is a model designed to generate obscene profits with the minimum investment cost.
Here is a clear example of how the Industry not only installed the concept of what is acceptable but how at every step it tries to move that line for its convenience:
Some comments from the community present in this content:
¨We lost the real point years ago. No items, neither cosmetic, convenience, surprise nor anything shuld be sold in a fully priced game. Once the public allow one thing because it's "just cosmetics" it's just a matter of time until the bad faith of PR kicks in and puts tons of extra data on the user computer and then asks more money to unlock it.¨
¨You are not toxic or negative, you speak the truth. You hopefully get gamers to think and realize they are being lied to and screwed out of their hard earned money.¨
¨These are the same people that, as Jim Sterling likes to remind us of, tried to convince us they weren't charging for mods because they weren't calling them mods even though they were.¨
¨Anything that gets you to your Goal faster for real money is Pay to win
Heck even EXP Boosters are pay to win by definition¨
¨Developers/publishers don't get to decide definitions.¨
¨Im afraid we allready lost the fight against this when it for some reason got acceptable to pay for cosmetics... I know people say but its just cosmetics but these are the things that was useally rewarded for doing something extra in a game. Imagine looting an end game treasure chest and getting a higher lvl armor that looks exactly like a lvl 1 armor set, then theres no sign of progression in that game and it would get tiresome to play the game cus everything looks the same... (just ask anthem) the develepors knows this and are putting it behind a pay wall... and lets not forget the stigmatitation from looking like a new player when everyone else around you has something fancy, its all psycological manipulation... saying its just cosmetics is extremely harmfull to gaming. Just imagine a world were everyone looked the same, i mean come on its just cosmetics...¨
¨The definition of p2w has already changed once by "It's just cosmetcs" with Overwatch. Bethesda is just trying to their hand at it too.
If "cosmetics" weren't under the definition of p2w, the whole "bullying default skins in Fortnight" thing would never have happened.¨
¨I thought that pai to win is everything what you can buy in game and what has impact for gameplay(It has usually - 99% any impact on player progress). ...¨
¨Pay-to-win, loot boxes, micro-transactions, DLC, incomplete games, lobbying against regulation... for fuck's sake, I just want to play good games. Is that so much to ask for?
I'm so sick of this. I used to use games as a way to avoid harmful vices like alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, and casinos because my family has a history of addiction and I know it would fuck up my life beyond repair if I ever started using any of those things. Now, my escape from these things has turned into a vice itself. Every game now is stuffed to the brim with things that want to play into my addictive personality. I'm sick of this industry trying to turn me into a whale at every turn. It's just so damn disheartening that developers apparently think this is okay¨
¨I will never understand why "cosmetic microtransactions" are ok¨
¨For me..I'm done. I'll pay for a game with zero micro transactions, or play a free game with them. I have played Destiny 1 and 2. But I am not buying the next season. Since leaving Activision, the last update, they are selling even more cosmetics. I'm done! Going outside.¨
¨Just like politics they are now trying to twist words in a manner that gives em a completely different meaning. I know what Pay to Win is and what it means. I have my very own standard at how I perceive a game as P2W or not, I dont need to argue with a greedy company which tries to shove THEIR definition down my throat. I will simply react by staying clear of any Bethesda games from now on as they have proven to be liars and being unreliable when it comes to quality anymore.¨
¨The huge issue for me is they're monetizing these games off of a small portion of players. So what's happening is the minority is changing game development for the majority.¨
¨I think 'pay to win' does not really have an objective meaning, it depends on what people consider to be winning ie; skins are usually not considered p2w, but in an MMORPG looking cool and getting gear sets are usually part of the end game and if the bought cosmetics look better than the in game gear, I'd consider that "winning".¨
Thank you!
Like a caress on the soul, your ability to understand a position even if it does not represent yours is admirable and rewarding.
A pleasure for me to have your presence in this thread.
Qualifying first in a PvP environment, rule the market or being the first to defeat the most difficult Boss in a dungeon in a virtual, fictional and entertainment environment represents the true values of life?
Interesting...
No one is saying cosmetics cannot be introduced in unethical ways. I played ESO, I know how shitty a company can be about their cosmetics and true costs.
But it still wasn’t P2W.
You can not argue something that is objectively incorrect, and not expect to be called a fool for acting like one.
Appearance is important to you, that’s nice, but that doesn’t provide any gameplay benefit. You gain nothing from having a different shade blue on your coat. You gain nothing from your cosmetic pet being a green bird instead of a brown one.
If it cannot be quantified, if it hinges entirely on subjective feelings, which aesthetics do, then it cannot be P2W using the correct definition of the term.
Impossible to debate when a group within the interaction of the debate believes that it has the exclusive right to determine the meaning of "win".
To be clearer, neither the Industry nor a certain group of consumers has the power to define what is to win for all those involved.
As I already explained, for many users and in this particular case, for me, profiting from cosmetic aspects in a video game is a form of P2W, it is a way of exploiting the need of a group of consumers in search of generating absurd profits in return of the minimum possible investment.
It is about manipulating the feeling of winning of said group to extract the most money from them, demonstrating a clear lack of interest in these consumers.
When I heard for the first time about the AOC project and its premises to create the best gaming community by returning to the old values, the old school, when its members manifested their extreme passion for the genre and its roots, I thought I would find something different.
As a consumer I still hope that they will show me that words can materialize and become a quality product.
Although the chosen model is not the worst among predatory practices, it is still part of them.
Also, once the gates of hell are open, it is only a matter of time until the worst demons begin to emerge and take over the stage.
If you are really interested in the topic and are willing to invest a little more time, I leave you another contribution that may lead you to reflect on what we are discussing from another perspective:
Purely cosmetic effects can absolutely be considered to be gameplay advantages depending on what goals a player has. This is easiest to see in a game like Minecraft where players will spend time and resources to transform cobblestone blocks into the functionally identical stone bricks solely because they are more aesthetically pleasing but the same principle can be applied to other games/genres. Many people who play MMOs consider visual customization to be part of the core gameplay experience and if you are one of those players it is not "objectively wrong" to consider cosmetics a gameplay advantage. If cosmetics didn't provide anything then why would anyone buy them and why would Intrepid bother trying to sell them in the first place?
I also find it amusing how you completely ignore anything that is qualitative in nature when your criteria for what does and doesn't count as "gameplay" which your entire argument depends on is completely subjective and can't be quantified either.
While some wonder why Elder Soul tries so hard to maintain his position when most oppose it?
The answer, ladies and gentlemen, is conviction and the hope that at some point during the crusade the echo of the battle cries would reach the ears of more heroes willing to join a cause that was believed to be lost.
(he gets off his steed and sticks his sword in the mud, supports one of his knees, lowers his head and pays his respects to matthewhills ...)
It’s simple. Intrepid pledges no P2W. You are calling them liars and cheats by claiming their cash shop is P2W by making up you own definition of the term shared by nobody.
You can quote people who don’t like micro transactions for cosmetics. I understand and somewhat support that position. I don’t have a problem with how Intrepid does it, clearly, since I’ve given them quite a bit of money but I get if other disagree.
But you can’t find anyone who agrees that it’s P2W. Because that is such a bizarre concept that you’re not going to. You can certainly extrapolate that the behavior being called out in articles is P2W but until you can find that specific accusation you have absolutely nothing.
Let’s give an analogy that might help. Let’s say there is a department store that charges outrageous prices for some items, and they don’t allow refunds. Those are certainly business practices that will draw criticism and you would probably not have trouble finding such criticisms. And you’d probably also find disgruntled customers or potential customers unhappy with those practices.
But then let’s say you insisted that the business was literally committing theft against customers, that they were actually breaking the law and stealing. You would not find any legal support for such a claim, regardless of how many people dislike what they are doing. Because it doesn’t fit the definition of theft; it’s at best hyperbole, at worst ignorant and inaccurate ranting.
That’s what you’ve been doing for pages in this thread. You’ve been making unsupported and objectively false claims and use sources to back up your accusations that do not include your accusations.
I like you as a poster and think you’re cool and sometimes cleverly funny, but some of your ideas are bizarre and factually incorrect, and you’ve been tenacious in your crusade to push this tripe.
The fact that you think me disagreeing makes me afraid, worried, frustrated, or angry means you're lost. I was never emotional in writing that. Me telling you that your premise is faulty and your self-defeating relativistic ideology as awful is not me being emotional. It's me calling out inferior ideas/reasoning.
I never pointed out or said you were representing absolute logic but I pointed out you are using a flawed self-defeating ideology.
I don't want to read about more weak ideas that aren't worth having as I've already entertained that by posting here. I wasn't even going to respond to this thread because the way you talk to people/ reason/ general understanding of what other's write seems disingenuous with the way you approach them.
Basically how you falsely extrapolate what I or others said. It's ironic when you call me naive when you think that's what I said about the general consensus of P2W. I said that I've spoken with thousands of players over time in my personal experience and that those people talk to probably thousands too about the parameters of P2W. Much likely the same for many forum posters. I never said anything limiting to only the people on the forum. I'm talking probably about a pool of at max 2,000 players from direct and indirect (guild get-togethers, large gaming communities, etc.) contact from my experience. And people on the forum that share similar general parameters of P2W know many others too with like-minded takes.
Again you misinterpreted what I said and called me naive and emotional. You are wrong. You read what I write but you do not seem to understand.
It’s no more a “”need”” than your “”need”” to own a Louis Vuitton purse instead of an off brand. That’s why your entire premise is absolutely stupid.
You are comparing dressing up in a game.....to having an actual talent to come in first place in pvp, being successful in pve and running a market. All of which takes an actual talent. I would argue that 99% of ehat you have written in this thread is just to come off as intelligent for writing large comments with meaningless input. Easily one of the worst threads I've ever read. I'll be taking my leave from it. Have a good one.
I'd rather appeal to the consensus than appeal to the extreme. Performing the latter seems ridiculous most of the time. People can be emotionally charged and objective on what's P2W. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Our arguments are not the same. I never even spoke about the argument, I spoke about the premise being the definition of P2W OP uses to guide his argument being that the cash shop is P2W. My argument would be the cash shop is not P2W. But I didn't go down this road since the premise is far more important. Sure people can interchangeably use premise and argument, it happens.
Obviously it'd be P2W if the cash shop had stats. I hope most of us can agree on that. Them having a different/additional definition of P2W does not mean I should accept it.
I can put it very simply and lay it out nicely. The premise of the definition of pure cosmetics being P2W, I disagree with. The argument and the principle you are using against me that P2W ruins gameplay or whatever. I can agree with. You carelessly and falsely conflating the two as if they may on the principle of the argument being the same whilst the two premises are different, is wrong.
I can see and understand his position as can most of us. It's not that hard to understand. Us disagreeing doesn't mean we are obtuse to it.
I don't have to accept OP's definition/premise though I can easily understand it. It's very important to define and agree on definitions for a discussion. If I can't own my definition (which can change if a stronger one is presented), then how can OP assert his. I respect his right to an opinion, doesn't mean I can't call it awful or weak.
See, this is a point I agree with.
Thing is, Ashes isn't a full priced game.
A full priced MMO would be $15 a month, a box price and a DLC price. Ashes only has one of those three.
Intrepid had to make a decision - charge for a box and DLC, or have a cosmetic cash store. As this thread should show you, most players think they made a good choice. Sadly for you, they could only make one choice for all players, they couldn't customize it to each.
The issue I have with your ideas here is still in referring to a cosmetic cash shop as pay to win. It's fine that you don't like it, it's fine that you post that you don't like it, it's not fine that you call it something it is not.
If you want to say that you consider access to every look in every color to be key to your enjoyment of a game, that is fine - it is your call.
If that is indeed what you are saying, I will say the same thing I say to players that want to only PvP, or to only PvE; Ashes may not be the game for you.
If you take the time to read the previous contributions you will see that I have provided several comments from external links where a wide variety of people make it clear that microtransactions of cosmetic objects is a form of P2W.
Do not feel that I want to change your realities, do not feel that you have to change mine.
Stay true to your convictions if you have them, live by them, and know that there are people out there willing to do the same.
As for me, based on my personal gaming experience, my expectations, my interpretation of what a complete gaming experience should be, my perception of winning, my perception of what the role means, my perception of what means paying an adequate value for a product or service, and all my other perceptions is that I say that the sale of cosmetic items (that equal or exceed the value of a whole complete game, of two, three or even ten complete games) in an online game with a mandatory recurring subscription is a form of P2W.
Now I'm going to repeat something already said before:
Does this mean that Intrepid has to listen to me, agree with me or change its model?
Not.
Does it mean that those who do not think like me have to listen to me, agree with me or change their way of thinking?
Not.
As I already put in other comments, I am totally in favor of a model where the game is charged and the subscription is paid, without any type of microtransactions.
When the cost of the game is removed and cosmetic microtransactions are incorporated, what is being done is financing the lack of revenue from the sale of the game by one group of consumers to overburden another group who see their gaming experience ruined.
Why does this model work?
Because indeed there is an important part of consumers who see the cosmetic aspect as a fundamental part of their gaming experience, their goal or way of winning.
Regarding the fact that AOC may not be a game for me, well, as long as this model persists as of its launch, I totally agree, it is not a game for me.
That is why I share this thread, understanding that one of the bases of Intrepid was to create one of the best communities in the genre and to return to the roots.
Well, my contribution is that from my perspective it does not feel that way, they are leaving out of the model many people who will surely heed advice like yours, that AOC is not the game for them.
I understand it, but when they use words like, old school, create the best community of the genre and make references to the origins of the genre, one does not expect to find a model like this.
From the moment I learned about the game and based on its premises I decided to see what it was about.
From my perspective, I came across a 3-year project where 70% of the content available for evaluation are microtransactions and packages of cosmetic items and access or exclusivity benefits, 25% is a BR version of the game and 5% is a Very limited version of the promised MMORPG which does not have the main mechanics implemented that could make it unique.
Again I insist, I am not trying to change anyone, only to convey one of the many perceptions that a consumer may have in relation to a product.
So I would say this is basically a guarantee that the game will go live with a cosmetic only cash shop.
The problem is, again, that you have not actually provided an objective argument as to why it should change - you have only provided a subjective argument from your own specific purpose. Far from an objective argument, many of your posts in this thread are nonsensical, and the thread seems to be more of a meme than an actual debate or discussion as to why Intrepid should alter the game.
Why - from my perspective - should Intrepid alter their payment model in the way you propose? How would it benefit anyone other than a very few people that want excessive cosmetic options?
¨Why - from my perspective - should Intrepid alter their payment model in the way you propose? How would it benefit anyone other than a very few people that want excessive cosmetic options?¨
Let's see, what is the current fundraising model based on?
Microtransactions of cosmetic objects.
Who consumes this type of object?
For the most part, those who invest the most money are the know as casual gamers, focused on role and personalization, exploration and history or socialization.
In a product where part of their gaming experience is taken and it is monetized to finance that of others, where they will be exposed to a constant PvP environment without consensus, mastery of the main mechanics by large guilds, low probability of achieving loot on shared objectives, restricted world travel forms and many other disadvantages, the most likely result is that they will end up leaving the game prematurely.
If those who make up a significant part of AOC's revenue leave the game, who will make it possible to maintain the game and create new content?
Who is going to make the existence of a game possible for those users who brag about the absurdity of cosmetics and how unnecessary they are to enjoy the game?
Once the gaming population that fuels microtransactions becomes sparse, Intrepid is going to need to make major changes to generate more revenue.
What will these changes be?
How will these changes achieve increased revenue without breaking the current promise of what Intrepid considers P2W?
That is why my initial proposal aims to ¨respect¨ this group of players, recognizing them as part of the community, offering them a fairer gaming environment where their gaming experiences do not demand to carry the burden of financing those who have access to a complete experience (from their perspectives) without large investments of money.
A broader player base means higher fixed subscription income and starting from that base is where the 3 proposed options arise:
1- Pay only the monthly subscription (15usd, without access to additional cosmetics). Total payment of 180usd per year.
2- Pay for the game / expansion (60usd) to get access to all Tier I cosmetics + monthly subscription (15usd, without access to Tier II cosmetics). Total payment of 240usd per year.
3- Pay for the game / expansion (60usd) to obtain all Tier I cosmetics, additional monthly payment (5usd) for total access to Tier II + monthly subscription (15usd). Total payment of 300usd per year.
From my perspecttive, any other payment model that seeks to increase the amount of money contributed by users of group 2 and 3 from my point of view is excessive and goes against the wishes expressed by Intrepid.
https://intrepidstudios.com/
¨VALUES
Everyone at Intrepid is focused on building games that help bring people together. Part of what makes us who we are is that ability to connect with others, and we adhere to this design principle throughout our development process. Since the beginning, Intrepid has held to the philosophy of making games with no pay-to-win or cash grab elements – we respect our players and believe that these tactics aren’t necessary if we simply build games that players want to play. That philosophy, combined with a commitment to transparency and communication with our community, reflects the most important values that we as developers can uphold.¨
¨No P2W¨ and ¨build games that players want to play¨.
I am a player.
I see cosmetic microtransactions as P2W
I want to play a game without microtransactions or at least one that does not abuse this aspect of the game which represents a fundamental part of my feeling of success.
That argument though, is weak. Assuming you were trying to show me a reason why this should change, it is a very weak argument indeed. In fact, I'd go as far as to say there is no argument, as you haven't attempted to address things from any perspective other than your own.
Your perspective and mine.
Your experience in the world of video games and mine.
Remember, it is not about convincing the other but about expressing opinions.
In my personal experience, the players called Hardcore focus on the performance of their characters, leaderboards and achievements based on the power of their characters, they usually wear outfits, mounts and any type of cosmetic object that demonstrates their achievements and permanence within the game.
The casual ones are divided into a gradient between those who try to get closer to the hardcore without success and those who clearly move away from that style of play to focus on their own.
Within this second group, the consumption of cosmetics among other types of microtransactions ranges from the desire to satisfy the need for gratification due to frustration to the need to satisfy their gaming experience which was put behind additional payments.
I was able to see this pattern in numerous MMORPGs simply by looking at each user's cosmetic collections within these groups, cosmetics used within the game, presence of achievements associated with micropayments or in-game cosmetics, etc.
This does not mean that a Hardcore gamer does not perform microtransactions, or that a casual one avoids performing them.
It is simply the difference in the volume of purchases made between the different groups, the trend.
Of course this also changes drastically depending on the genre of the game and the platform used, but we are talking about an MMORPG for PC.
Basically, you are asking Intrepid to alter the most important factor of the game (the way they make money) based on an assumption you have made.
If you look at what little data there is publically available in terms of microtransations in MMO's, you will see that there is a fairly close line between the amount of time a player spends in game and the amount of money they spend.
Casuals are not the people propping up the game via the cash shop.
Do some research, rather than just making assumptions.
The point of p2w is to get players to spend money on stuff no rationally minded person would. They want you to get addicted to the buzz of a game loop then take the buzz away and put it behind a paywall. It happens very quickly with most whales not actually playing for long. if you allow players to subscribe $20 for everything not just will you lose out of whales you'll also lose out of a lot of players who will see the short buzz for what It is and not play.
However, I don't quite understand what the aim of the original post is. It seems to be a given that there will be a cash shop for cosmetics and also that there are timed exclusives that will never again be available. If I was a completionist in regards to computer games as well I just wouldn't buy this game, because I can't "win" it. Timed exclusives means that by definition you can't win the game unless you're in it from the start, if having everything is your goal. I don't see the point of trying to mitigate it at that point, it is a lost cause. You can still have fun in a game that you consider pay to win, but you can't win it so the degree of paying to win is just degrees of reducing your fun.
As for being pay to win it depends on how the cash shop will be designed in my opinion. If they are true store exclusives that you can't get in any other way then it isn't pay to win, it is pay to play. If you can buy stuff in the shop that you could otherwise grind in game then I will agree that is the type of pay to win that is is pay for convenience or pay to get things faster, something very common in mobile games and which I detest.
From a FOMO standpoint if everyone has the same option to acquire something then it isn't pay to win, even if you could argue that the real life costs prohibit players from obtaining the items. You could just flip that argument to the opposite though and claim that wealthy people with little time are being persecuted because everything in the game requires the person to have free time to grind in the game.
Time spent in the game = Hardcore?
That is, for example, a user who works at home and has his game session 24/7 and is dedicated to collecting flowers, wood and doing some missions is considered Hardcore?
Or an adult who is dedicated to doing the main missions and shares his account with his children who are dedicated to running through the forest and doing a little crafts being 24/7 connected are Hardcore?
Or a teenager without work and with just enough money for the subscription provided by her parents who is 24/7 playing with her friends making softcore content is Hardcore?
As for basing myself on assumptions, well, it isn't, it's based on actual experience in multiple MMORPGs and interaction with other players.
Based on my experience, Hardcore players spend their time progressing through the most difficult content, getting the BIS, perfecting their strategies in search of occupying the first positions in the rankings, etc.
They are usually organized, optimize their time, establish rules of participation in their content, schedule events, their main goals are to gain access to content of maximum difficulty and be completionists of ingame achievements and invest extra money in benefits that enhance their strategies at a competitive-performance level.
On the other hand, the casual ones, which represent the majority of the player base, range from those who have very short gaming sessions and without specific objectives to users who invest large amounts of time without pursuing the meta-goal of the game at a competitive level, generally are dedicated to making individual content or non-competitive group content, professions, etc.
The main whales that I crossed my way through MMORPGs in terms of spending on cosmetics (remember that in AOC the only micropayment option is cosmetic) were casual.
I respect your vision on the subject and surely if you are right AOC is going to be a successful game since it is based specifically on a highly competitive and unfriendly environment for casuals.
On the contrary, if my vision regarding this issue is correct, it will only be a matter of waiting and seeing the results.
Remember that my contributions are only an opinion in a forum which can be easily discarded or ignored.