Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
In regards to microtransactions.
Idoenjoycupcakes
Member
Hello.
I will start out by saying that no, I am not a supporter, I have not in any shape of form contributed to the money pile for the developement of this game. I am merely a MMO loving individual, who have taken interest in Ashes of Creation. I am not a qualified professional in any shape of form, I am but a positive realist, who desperately wants to enjoy a media that was once enjoyable when he was a kid.
Now, the post will probably be long and there will not be a TL:DR, as these concerns and points can not be made with a single statement. Or they can, but that would be diminishing the actual issues I am going to point out. If you really want to add a TL:DR which ignores every single point I am going to make, I will add one for you: "All microtransactions are bad, mmmkay?"
Microtransactions and business
The video game industry is a business, creating video games costs money, and thus it should be fully expected that a video game will be released as a luxury product which earns the developing studio or company a substantial revenue. Video games are a luxury, not a necessity.
In recent years we have seen an increase in a practice which was otherwise foreign to many of us, who have been gaming since the late 18's and early 20's. Microtransactions have surged, deemed a necessity by large gaming corporations although they really aren't. The idea that microtransactions is a necessity to keep a cost of 60 dollar on video games is ludicrous, especially when said corporations spend most money on advertising the game, than they now do for shipping the game; most of them no longer pay retailers and shipment of their products to said retailers, across lands and sea - keep that in mind.
Microtransactions in all shapes and forms have had several effects on the industry. It angered some, including myself, it was a joy for others, primarily the suits running these gaming studios and corporations, while also being seen as a convenience for other players, for reasons unknown to me. But the worst effect that microtransactions have on games, is the fact that they are made to sell. Microtransactions primarily preys on specific people, children, and those with compulsive spending habits, and honestly - this is extremely gross and a very, very low view on ones fellow human beings. You are basically implementing a system, which takes advantage of and ruins the lives of others in order to make a profit, and many others support this practice. Just stop buying it, is not a proper argument, there are people with these problems.
If you are a salesman, there will always be two branches to think of. The 'Necessity' branch, and the 'Lifestyle' branch. Those two things are different. The necessity branch will have goods that solve a problem not created by oneself, thus there will be no reason to incentivize selling these goods, people will buy them because they are necessary. THe lifestyle branch is entirely different, and this is the branch microtransactions fits in under. In order to sell a lifestyle good, a problem will need to be created. In the context of a MMORPG, this will mean that something must be taken from the game itself, to prop up the market place in which the microtransactions are sold. In context with cosmetic microtransactions, this will most likely mean that in game, cosmetic sets or armor sets if you will, will be made to look ugly and uninteresting, to push you in the direction of the market place instead.
In order to incentivize the marketplace purchases, a problem must be created; that is the rule of a business. Microtransactions are also often designed in such a manner, that they are low cost; which makes the individual think that it is so little spending, might as well buy more. And before you know it, said buyer just bought sets for a price equal to that of five triple AAA titles. It is a literal problem in gaming today, along with uninspired design and lack of ideas and a willingness to take a risk, even if the game turns out just a niche.
This is why I implore a change in the business model. Keep the subscription fee to support the servers, to pay staff, and make a small profit too. But remove the microtransactions and add in a box price for the main game and bigger expansions instead. It is healthier for the game, it is healthier for the players, and it argueable assures the playerbase that the only incentive the developers have, is to make the game as fun as possible for the players, so that they remain subscribed.
I will start out by saying that no, I am not a supporter, I have not in any shape of form contributed to the money pile for the developement of this game. I am merely a MMO loving individual, who have taken interest in Ashes of Creation. I am not a qualified professional in any shape of form, I am but a positive realist, who desperately wants to enjoy a media that was once enjoyable when he was a kid.
Now, the post will probably be long and there will not be a TL:DR, as these concerns and points can not be made with a single statement. Or they can, but that would be diminishing the actual issues I am going to point out. If you really want to add a TL:DR which ignores every single point I am going to make, I will add one for you: "All microtransactions are bad, mmmkay?"
Microtransactions and business
The video game industry is a business, creating video games costs money, and thus it should be fully expected that a video game will be released as a luxury product which earns the developing studio or company a substantial revenue. Video games are a luxury, not a necessity.
In recent years we have seen an increase in a practice which was otherwise foreign to many of us, who have been gaming since the late 18's and early 20's. Microtransactions have surged, deemed a necessity by large gaming corporations although they really aren't. The idea that microtransactions is a necessity to keep a cost of 60 dollar on video games is ludicrous, especially when said corporations spend most money on advertising the game, than they now do for shipping the game; most of them no longer pay retailers and shipment of their products to said retailers, across lands and sea - keep that in mind.
Microtransactions in all shapes and forms have had several effects on the industry. It angered some, including myself, it was a joy for others, primarily the suits running these gaming studios and corporations, while also being seen as a convenience for other players, for reasons unknown to me. But the worst effect that microtransactions have on games, is the fact that they are made to sell. Microtransactions primarily preys on specific people, children, and those with compulsive spending habits, and honestly - this is extremely gross and a very, very low view on ones fellow human beings. You are basically implementing a system, which takes advantage of and ruins the lives of others in order to make a profit, and many others support this practice. Just stop buying it, is not a proper argument, there are people with these problems.
If you are a salesman, there will always be two branches to think of. The 'Necessity' branch, and the 'Lifestyle' branch. Those two things are different. The necessity branch will have goods that solve a problem not created by oneself, thus there will be no reason to incentivize selling these goods, people will buy them because they are necessary. THe lifestyle branch is entirely different, and this is the branch microtransactions fits in under. In order to sell a lifestyle good, a problem will need to be created. In the context of a MMORPG, this will mean that something must be taken from the game itself, to prop up the market place in which the microtransactions are sold. In context with cosmetic microtransactions, this will most likely mean that in game, cosmetic sets or armor sets if you will, will be made to look ugly and uninteresting, to push you in the direction of the market place instead.
In order to incentivize the marketplace purchases, a problem must be created; that is the rule of a business. Microtransactions are also often designed in such a manner, that they are low cost; which makes the individual think that it is so little spending, might as well buy more. And before you know it, said buyer just bought sets for a price equal to that of five triple AAA titles. It is a literal problem in gaming today, along with uninspired design and lack of ideas and a willingness to take a risk, even if the game turns out just a niche.
This is why I implore a change in the business model. Keep the subscription fee to support the servers, to pay staff, and make a small profit too. But remove the microtransactions and add in a box price for the main game and bigger expansions instead. It is healthier for the game, it is healthier for the players, and it argueable assures the playerbase that the only incentive the developers have, is to make the game as fun as possible for the players, so that they remain subscribed.
4
Comments
So after carefully deliberating my financial situation and making sure to account for any upcoming bills, I decided that I was in a safe place to purchase this package.
I consider myself an average gamer, I have responsibilities outside of the game-world and a typical job. I'm not swimming in money, nor am I drowning in debt. My personal financial situation wont be the same as the next poster, or the poster after that. Everyone individually is in a different situation with what they are or aren't able to spend their money on.
But each of us individually have the freedom TO spend what money we have, on whatever we choose.
Intrepid is simply offering alternative appearances (re-skins) of clothing, mounts, pets, vehicles within their game. They aren't forcing anyone to purchase them. And by purchasing them, you don't become more powerful over someone who doesn't. You just, "look" different.
I may never spend another dollar on something in the cosmetic store again. Who knows? Or maybe years from now, something might peek my interest.
But I'm responsible only to myself about what money I spend where. If I'm irresponsible and spend bill money on cosmetics, I'm sure I'll learn a valuable lesson when my heat is turned off, or my water runs only cold.
Romin noodles taste good for a time... But only for a time...
Steven Sharif is my James Halliday (Anorak)
“That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die.”
-HPL
I am certain things can be worked out.
Personally I am in no way against people, who have thrown money at the game during it's developement, to receive some if not more cosmetic benefits for having done so.
The game just should not have an income dependent on an online game store.
Certainly, there are people like you and I who are responsible spenders, atleast in our own minds.
But pointing that out is totally disregarding the point I made about people who are compulsive spenders, there is nothing being learned here, because it is a trait that is just innate and not necessarily controlleable. Couple that with the fact, that everything bought in an online market place is, as I pointed out in the thread, usually dirt cheap which gives the idea, that it is a small spending and which eventually leads to a bigger spending.
You may be able to control yourself, I may be able to, but not everyone are you and I. These online market places are developed to sell stuff, and as a rule it needs to create a problem to solve. Because the online market place is going to be THE money-maker in Ashes of Creation, it will become a problem. Not just in terms of taken advantage of kids and those with compulsive spending habits, but also in terms of the quality of the overall game.
Ashes of Creation is a self-proclaimed MMORPG, as a result of the RPG part, progress is not just getting better gear and getting more powerful, but also looking better, hence why cosmetics is equally a part of progression as is any stat-giving gear.
A general rule of games with a heavily focused online market place; is that they will eventually fall because more focus will be put into selling the market place, rather than selling the game. Steven Sharif himself was an avid MMO player, as I understand it, and he likely have noted this as well, atleast rumours has it that he spent a lot of time in Archage - at that appearantly drove him to wanting to fund and develope his own MMORPG. My only guess is, that eventually the entertainment was doved us, because less focus was put into the game and more into the game store, which is the eventuel result of a game that relies on a game store for it's income.
My arguments are likely to fall on deaf ears despite evidence suggesting this is exactly how it goes, but I need to try regardless because I do like the MMORPG genre a whole lot myself. It is not just the humane punk-rocker in me speaking against a greedy tendency which takes advantage of less fortunate people, but also an overall love for an industry and hobby that I can spend my hang-over weekends on. I want to see love and passion in the game, not just a gold fever.
Ashes currently has no pay to win and no pay for convenience. This means that frivolous spending cant be stopped but required spending isnt present. You can wait until launch and just pay the sub fee. No box cost and no package required.
The approach is totally different in Ashes than BDO or Archeage - Steven played Archeage in the earlier days before P2W tactics destroyed the game I believe. IS are very active with the shop/cosmetics but they are also quite adamant no p2w or p4c will exist.
The shop wont be removed because the shop has been the lifeline for all testers to date. If you didnt buy kick starter or summer backer or a package you have no right to test. These packages are integral to the testing phases and are very active. No shop would have meant less testers.
I suppose traditional applications could have been made like older MMOs but the shop started thanks to fans and those fans would still back the shop.
If the shop is limited to the testing grounds of the game only, fair enough. In terms of the overall quality of the game, I can see why it can be a benefit, rather than a detriment.
I know the model that they choose to go with. If the online shop is going to be a part of the game at it's official release, that is where the issue are likely to come. If the shop is the bread and butter for the game's continued developement (after release) and survival, that is when it microtransactions in ALL shapes and forms becomes a problem, because by then it'll be a detriment to the game itself.
People once stood against Horse Armor DLC, it is time people started growing a backbone.
We said yes to multiboxing - the motion was passed.
We asked for financial input - the motion was passed.
Do we often get bit in the ass over desire? Yes we do.
Do we often make mistakes? Yes we do.
Do we live with the consequences? Yes we do.
At this point and at launch, the shop stands to be revamped. I really do not believe the shop will disappear at launch. We have embers to spend in the shop after launch.
The player base will leave if pay to win or pay for convenience enters the game. You seem to tar all microtransactions with the same brush but there are different types of microtransactions. Ashes doesnt plan on having microtransactions. Ashes has a cosmetics store.
But I still read the post, I'm tired of people assuming what a company, and I repeat a company, should do well. I'm not going to say that microtransactions are good, but it's the market we live in, you can't tell a company to "settle for small profits". In one of your points you say that microtransactions are designed for children, which seems to me totally false, just look at the Korean market where adults spend more than half of their salary in MMO. Not to say that a child should not be playing an MMO and much less one based on PVP where in many occasions (if not always) people tend to insult and use bad words in the chat and even harass other players.
I am more hardcore thinking, I would like a game without selling cosmetics too, but I would go even further, I would like a real hardcore game where any cosmetic is obtained only by playing and are pieces of equipment, that when you die you drop them to the ground and therefore you can lose them, a game where reaching the maximum level can easily cost you 5 months and when you die you lose part of your experience. But people don't like those games, only a small part of the community.
If microtransactions are the dominant market in MMOs, it's because people pay for them, because there are people who don't have time to do something inside the game and prefer to pay 30 euros and get a cosmetic that could cost someone else time, we have reached a point that in Korea this is a way to show wealth and status. Compared to that, selling cosmetics doesn't seem bad to me. I would rather they didn't and pay double for a subscription, I would be willing to pay 30-40 euros a month for an MMO that meets my expectations but my 30 euros compared to one of those Korean whales that spends 900 a month, is nothing.
Remember that intrepid studios is a company, and therefore seeks profits.If you don't like that you could try to make your own MMO, once you see the weekly bills for the salaries of the programmers and designers you would understand that it would be unsustainable to keep paying them during the years of development that are left to the game and wait for the launch to start having benefits. That can work with companies that have already launched games before and have the capital that brought them those games but not for a company that is launching its first video game.
Yes, I do target all microtransaction, because as I pointed out in my post, they are essentially the same. "They are just cosmetics" is a terrible argument. To say that it has no effect on gameplay is ludicrous, I for one remember when "just cosmetics" where unlocked by playing a game, not by pulling out your credit card. I also remember games not being intentionally designed to incentivize an online market.
This incentivzation comes in two different forms depending on what is sold. This is why I mentioned in my post that it had to be long, because the points made can not just be cut into small bits, it requires explanation. Anyway, as explained in my initial post, if you want to sell something, you will have to create a reason for people to buy that something. Pay 2 win already creates and solves a problem. If you want to sell xp boosts, you create a longer, far more tedious grind to progress. If you want to sell cosmetics, you offer low quality items to be gained in the world, while high quality items will be sold at the online. You create a problem and provide a solution, that is just business.
And that kind of business created a bad video game.
Seeing as Ashes of Creation is a MMORPG, how your character look is just as important as how strong your character it. To see the progress on your character from looking like a peasant, to looking like nobility is part of the... well, yeah, progression. So in regards to video games, yes, the microtransactions are the same.
And that is disregarding the more ethical parts of microtransactions that are designed to prey on compulsive spenders, and yes, children, sorry to say. It may not be the intention of the developers, but that is what microtransaction bring.
I don't think wanting to earn something in game rather than purchase is particularely hardcore. We had time for it back in the day, before microtransactions became as prevalent as they are today, we sure do have time for it today as well. Not enough time is a silly excuse.
I'll give you the real reason as to why people buy the microtransactions. Because it is intentionally designed to incentivize those purchases. It is because the game starts to suffer from the fact, that it no longer has to be entertaining in order to make a profit, the microtransactions can now net the developers a nice profit even if the game turns out to just be a niche, with nothing but a small group of players playing.
You are absolutely correct when saying that companies want to make a profit, and while I don't really deeply dislike a company for wanting that, I personally believe there are far better ways to go about that. People do not buy microtransactions because they don't have time, it is because the game has been deliberatedly designed to be too boring to actually go through.
Putting the discussion of ethics aside and the general view of other human beings aside, it is why I abhor microtransactions. They diminish the gameplay, regardless of it being cosmetics or pay 2 win.
Unless you look at a game like Counter Strike, that really just sells weapon skins, as I understand it. In a game like that, we can only really talk about the ethics of microtransactions.
But pointing that out is totally disregarding the point I made about people who are compulsive spenders, there is nothing being learned here, because it is a trait that is just innate and not necessarily controlleable. Couple that with the fact, that everything bought in an online market place is, as I pointed out in the thread, usually dirt cheap which gives the idea, that it is a small spending and which eventually leads to a bigger spending.
This a lie. When do people need to take responsibility for their own lives? It is controllable you are not a wild animal take responsibility.
Next cosmetics as end game is a trope used by developers to shirk responsibility for making a good game that is fun.
Fun and cosmetics are completely subjective. What you and I like as cosmetics or consider fun mechanics may or may not be the same.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Cosmetics
I want to make sure that equitable cosmetics both from a quantity and quality standpoint are achievable through in-game achievements. Time, effort should let you be happy with what you can accomplish.[5] – Steven Sharif
In my opinion quality of cash shop cosmetics should be equal to in game achievable cosmetics, but offer a diverse selection of unique looks.[8] – Steven Sharif
So do I.
I also remember paying $60 for a top end game in 1998.
Back then, a large development team was maybe 25 people.
Today, I can still buy a game for $60, but that development team is now in the hundreds.
On top of that, you have inflation.
In 1998, a big mac (which is actually a fairly useful tool economists use to measure a number of things) was $2.56.
Today, a big mac is $5.66.
This means that in 1998, we were able to spend the equivalent of just under 23.5 big mac's to buy a game made by maybe 25 people. That means we were paying a big mac per developer.
Now, that same $60 that we are still paying would buy just over 10.5 big mac's, for a game made by hundreds of people.
We have gone from paying a big mac per developer for a game, to paying 5% of a big mac per developer for a game.
The above quote sees you yearning for times gone by, wishing that things were the way they were.
If this were true, if we were paying for games the way we were in 1998, when we were basically paying 1 big mac per developer on a game, we would now be paying just in to the four figure range for a new game (200 devs*5.66 per bic mac = $1132).
Now, there are obvious arguments that can be made in relation to scaling, but we really have no place complaining about game developers that put up a cosmetic only cash shop in order to keep the purchase cost low, when you consider that the purchase cost for a top end game is largely unchanged for over 20 years.
---
I understand some people place a large amount of importance on cosmetics in an MMO. Such people will have a valid complaint if - and only if - there isn't a wide range of quality cosmetics available via in game means.
Until that is known though, these people have no real complaint, just something to be wary of.
I want to make sure that equitable cosmetics both from a quantity and quality standpoint are achievable through in-game achievements. Time, effort should let you be happy with what you can accomplish.[5] – Steven Sharif
There will be legendary cosmetics that are only achievable in-game that will never be offered in the cosmetic shop.[6][7][2]
The most grand looking cosmetics will be from in-game achievment only.[9] – Steven Sharif
There will not be recolors or material swaps on the monthly cosmetics as a means to populate in-game achievements.[6]
There will be variants of the monthly cosmetics for NPCs and Mobs.[6][10]
Different variants of store purchased cosmetic creatures (Pets and Mounts) may exist in the wild.[11]
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Cosmetics
I don't get the impression that Steven is trying to make a boring game. He's far to excited about it.
They are just cosmetics is only a terrible argument in your opinion. There is relatively small portion of players that believe winning in game is based on cosmetics and thus believes cosmetics are P2W. There is an overwhelming majority of players that only regard situations such as losing a 1 v 1 duel to the winner having used cash shop items for an in game combat advantage or actual pay to convenience are P2W. There has been at least several extensive threads on this topic in Ashes forums and the majority of responses have always been strongly that cosmetics are not P2W.
Here is an 11 page discussion of exactly this:
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/45796/edit-payment-models-p2w-concept-and-a-proposal-topic-exhausted-please-do-not-reply/p1
Cosmetics themselves tend not be rather fun, it is usually the proces of achieving them that is supposed to be fun. The game is supposed to be fun and challenging, and the cosmetic is the reward you gain at the end. The cosmetic just looks awesome, or atleast look awesome to you.
With an online market this proces can be dimmed down in order to incentivize the lure of the marketplace.
I have not seen those quotes by Steve Sharif, I know only a little about him. The quotes does not change my perception. An only marketplace is implemented to create profit, and as I have stated, as is the rule of businesses. In order to sell something, there needs to be a problem. As this is cosmetics, the problem will be lack of high quality looking sets available through in game methods.
That whole $60 to justify microtransaction have always been silly, especially considering none of the additional money goes to the developers in the first place, but straight into the money of the suits. There is also a lot more spending on advertisement, rather than developing the game itself.
As should also be known, how exactly do you think you get your games now? How often do you get a physical box, with disk and everything? Not often if at all. Those are already cut costs. Production of discs is cut, transportation of the physical copy across the globe has been cut. Considering the overall treatment of developers I wouldn't be surprised if even their pay is cut too.
Microtransactions is not at all a necessity.
A game designed to sell from its store is designed for balance, it needs just enough to keep people in, the bare minimum. And then it needs its systems to be a drag to go through, to sell what is sold in the online store.
My point is not about whether or not cosmetics are p2w. My point is that cosmetics is a part of the overall gameplay, especially in online games. Cosmetics is an achievement to get, it allows you to stand out. An overwhelming majority of players are looking at this whole thing wrong, as you demonstrated. "It is just cosmetics" yeah, great... so are the graphics, and the overwhelming majority of players also agree that graphics are important.
Looking awesome gives everyone a feeling of enjoyment in the game, I will considering a statement opposit this to be a lie. And if it brings enjoyment in the game, then it is a part of the gameplay.
Cosmetics matter as much as implementing immersion in a game does, if all that mattered is combat, then all games may as well just be reduced to a mere shooter played out in nothing but a big white box, no props, no shading.
It is my arguement that in an MMO, especially want tagging 'RPG' along onto it, should equally put a lot of importance on the worn cosmetic sets, because it is equally a part of a character's progression, as getting gear with better stats. And an overwhelmingly majority of players knows that this is true, but are now too concerned to admit to it.
Now
As Noaani points out; we can only truly knows to what extend this will go once the game is released, it could be that Steven is truly the saint that he is being painted as.
I will still stick to my point though, a box price, for the main game and large expansions along with a sub fee is a whole lot better, and healthier for the game, than to have a sub fee AND an online store. The latter may not show problems in the beginning, but no developing studio is free of taint. But of course, an online store even with just cosmetics, is going to be far more profitable (because an overwhelmingly majority of players knows that cosmetics are important), we know this. And profitability is going to be more important, than developing a fun-lasting game.
While cosmetics earned in the game can be equal to or better looking than cash shop items, that does not mean such cosmetics will be easy to obtain. We have no idea what kind of farming requirements will be around such cosmetics.
Box cost + sub vs Sub and a cosmetic store both models have their ups and downs. They made their choice. Time will tell.
I get your emotional about people not showing self discipline and choosing to control their spending. People need to be responsible for them selves.
"A fool and his money, were lucky to get together in the first place."
Is there a reduced cost since 1998 from not needing to manufacture a disk and box to send out? Sure, that accounts for maybe $5 of the total cost of the game.
When we are talking about a game that should cost $1132 today based on nothing but inflation (both economic and inflation of game development manpower), that means we would now be talking about it selling for $1127.
It sells for $60.
Problem is, there are also increased costs from specalist developers that are now needed to develop a game that were not needed in 1998. There are also tools that cost in the millions of dollars that were not needed in 1998. The point of comparing it to the big mac index was as an illustration - there are obviously always going to be things on both sides that can be picked at - but they ARE on both sides.
As to your claim of the money going to the suits - that is just a catch all phrase that people that have no idea about what they are talking about use. What suits does it go to? Why are these suits a thing now yet not in 1998?
Advertising? Sure, it's gone up. Problem is, if the advertising of a game didn't bring in more income than the company spent on it, then they wouldn't advertise. If I sell a product for $1000 and of that $50 is actual profit pre-marketing for the company, an advertising campaign that cost us $150,000 would need to generate $3,000,000 in new sales before we broke even on it, and twice that before we considered that same form of advertising again.
Money isn't spent on advertising, it is invested in advertising - there is an expected return on every dollar spent.
This game is Stevens. It is not yours, it is not mine. He invested $30,000,000 (or was it $40,000,000?) in to the game himself.
He has every right to expect a return on that investment.
If he things the best way for that return to be realized is for the game to sell for $60 and have a cosmetic only store, then neither you nor I have any say in the matter other than with that $60.
You could always just put your own $30,000,000 up and develop your own MMO.
Welcome, I took the time to read your post. Take the time to consider these points from a person who is not a fan of microtransactions as well.
My first point would be that the ship has sailed, and you are left on the dock shouting as the boat fades from view. The microtransactions are not going anywhere for Ashes specifically. This is not something that is up for debate or subject to review down the line. We can expect the current financial model to stay locked in until at least six months after the game releases. Only a catastrophe at that time would cause them to re-evaluate the payment model. Promises about pricing and microtransactions have already been made.
Second. Inflation has been brought up already, but everyone has different ways of explaining things so maybe my explanation will show you a different prospective.
"The idea that microtransactions is a necessity to keep a cost of 60 dollar on video games is ludicrous, especially when said corporations spend most money on advertising the game, than they now do for shipping the game; most of them no longer pay retailers and shipment of their products to said retailers, across lands and sea - keep that in mind."-You
Video games cost $60 for big budget games in the 1980s. Yes, they did have lower cost budget titles back then, but the price for a big budget game has been 60$ for most of video game history. This is a huge problem. Pick your year on any inflation calculator on the internet. Put in 60$ for that year and see what it is worth now. You will see that 60$ games cost 120-140 in 2021 dollars on average in the 80s and 90s. The key problem is that the scope of development for those games and the costs to product them has increased while the value of the dollar has gone down.
Literally everything related to game development cost more now, yet the 60$ price tag has remained. Just because they don't have to physically put the product on the shelf anymore does not magically offset all of the other costs related to both game development, and just running a company.
You might not like it. I certainly don't like it, but microtransactions are currently the best way for companies to support themselves and their products. In the case of Ashes they are trying their hardest to Avoid pay-to-win microtransactions. The only way they can sustain that is for cosmetic microtransactions to be successful longer term. Otherwise who knows what crazy pay models they will have to try?
Putting a box cost, and keeping the sub alone would not magically be the same as having no microtransactions. Microtransactions just add up faster and harder than one time box costs or subs.
What is actually good about microtransactions that does not get enough credit is that they can inflate the development budget of the game, and allow the game to see faster and smoother updates with more staffing.
I can tell you right now POE leagues would be every six months to a year if microtransactions were not successful for them.
Currently the thing we need to be fighting in the game industry is pay-to-win, and loot boxes. Things that are not featured in Ashes.
I don't expect to change your mind, but I would encourage you to consider how crazy inflation and development costs are for all things.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Oh right, I forgot that there was no higher ups in this project. Admittedly, while I am outspoken against microtransaction, I can't help but look forward to see what developers can do when not bound by ridicolous time constraints, and given near infinite budgets - just where can we take video games?
It is also why I follow Star Citizen, also not contributed. It is a morbid curiousity.
Anywho, I believe an online store has much bigger downsides than it does ups, it has been shown time and time again, that a game with microtransaction will ultimatively suffer because of it. Maybe not immediately, but sooner or later, and that is a result of focus being on selling more on the store, than selling the game
That said, I won't be mad about being proven wrong in this instance. I will welcome it because I genuinely like the ideas for Ashes of Creation.
I may not be qualified.
But one can only wonder how some games remain insanely profitable with just a 60 dollar price tag and no microtransactions.
Is it bad game management?
Or is it because a huge deal of the developement cost, the majority of the developement cost actually, is spent more so on marketing?
Considering the more recent release with a 60 dollar price tag, Cyberpunk 2077, a lot of marketing cost was spent to feature Keanu Reeves. Game also came out a buggy mess, which is not unusual for games nowadays.
So it is clear we do not see the cost of these game in the final product at all. So one could argue that, yes, games should not cost 60 dollar - they should cost much less.
Cosmetics are optional, they will give you an advantage and there will be plenty of cosmetics in the game as well. BDO, for example, their store is "optional" but we all know that to succeed in that game you have to spend money on a million things.
Ashes are solving this by adding a subscription = a fixed cashflow of 15 a month per user. That 15 is all you the player needs to play and "win" in this game. The store is just there for you to support them or to dress up
I wouldn't even mind paying 20 Dollars monthly subscription fee, games are not cheap and anyone claiming that 60 Dollars is all they should ask for ... should realize that not everything has star wars in the title or Pokemon ... games people blindly buy
Point me to one recent MMO that does this.
$60 box cost, no subscription, no microtransactions.
A solid point that is very quotable.
I have argued many times that I value premium fun at 10$ an hour, and lesser fun experiences at 2.5-5$ an hour. With MMOs I spend an average of 15$ a month and get at least 40 to 60 hours of fun unless the game is just that bad. I normally at least cap the character and feel out the end game before quitting.
I get the 10$ an for for premium fun from the 20$ ticket price for a 2 hour movie, or the 60-80$ theme park ticket cost per day on average (You end up being 6-8 hours). Movies and Theme parks are not even really that fun to me, but they are premium sources of fun.
That being said If Ashes was everything is says it is going to be, an 80$ sub would be fair. Especially considering I would save so much money not doing other things or buying other games. That would be 1$ per hour of fun assuming I spend 20 hours a week on the game. We all know I am going to be on at least 6 to 8 hours a day on work days... 16 to 18 hours a day on weekends...
Sounds crazy, but it seems like a good investment when otherwise I would just be buying 60$ games every week and being done with them by the weekend. A lot of my console friends live like this.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Don't forget no paid "DLC"...
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
I want to particularly address the "It's just cosmetics" argument in regards to the cash shop.
So, first of all, the cosmetics can't really be called a microtransaction anymore. It's not all that micro.
Second of all, a point I have made many, many times already. Cosmetics, housing items, houses themselves, mounts etc are in fact an important aspect of an MMO. If you look at Final Fantasy 14 as a relatively recent example. The end-game there is practically this https://ffxiv.eorzeacollection.com/glamours
And developers know this, that's why there are entirely free games, without any pay to win that use this very thing as a pay model. And it's not just mobas. Fortnite does it too. And it works, because it's an important part, especially in an MMO in which the social aspect is paramount.
So I completely agree with the him saying "It's just cosmetics" is a bad argument.
Microtransactions are an absolute cancer and really need to be dialled back. I'd rather pay a higher subscription fee if they are that short on cash. And instead, have all the focus be on keeping me interested in the game. Make that cool cosmetic part of something in-game, make it difficult if you have to. Let me work towards it. And if you're not. Why not go all the way? Let me pay to have that boss slain so I can loot its corpse, and hand me the cosmetics it drops, blank out the stats if you feel that would be p2w. In the end, you're just making us pay for something that should have been in the game anyway.
MMOs are not the only games out in the industry. There have been multiple titles at the price of 60 dollars for several years now, and I doubt the production costs is much lower or much higher than it would be for a MMO. These game creates a nice profit even without microtransactions - microtransactions are only added as an extra layer of greed as admitted by Warner Bros in regards to Middle-earth: Shadow of War, it was far from necessary and the game was intentionally designed to lure player into the cash shop. Of course they only admitted to this after the game stopped selling copies for some brownie points.
Of course, MMOs are a special case as it requires running servers. Those costs are usually covered by a subscription fee, but in order for that to be a continued solution the MMO needs a playerbase. Time and time again we do see that MMOs with dwindling playerbases begins to make a switch from a subscription to a cash shop, due to the huge profitibility of the latter.
So yes, for a MMO to be sustainable in the long run on just a box price and subscription, it'll need a playerbase - it is why World of Warcraft's cash shop only gets bigger with every expansion.
So yeah, there is a point to be had. But fact of the matter is still, a box price alone is already a huge profit in the video game industry, and it usually sustains a studio for quite awhile. I doubt CD Project Red would be standing much longer if not. And I doubt they would receive any kind of other income for free as well.
My whole point is that cosmetics in a RPG is not entirely optional, cosmetics are never optional. It is something that players strive for, it is put in as a reward for players. If cosmetics were just optional, then it would not be sold as often as it is.
It is why I personally believe that the statement: "It is just cosmetics" is silly. Now, it could be that the Ashes of Creation team pleasantly surprises me, but so far I have not seen a game studio or game publisher release a game with microtransactions, that have NOT been a detriment to the game. But I would love to see and experience otherwise - but that is the grounds for my worries. I think a box price and subscription are a better way, and of course a price for larger expansions.
Intrepid is going to have massive bills from Amazon keeping this game live - it will be their second biggest expense after staff.
There is also the fact that MMO's are the far more complex than most other games. ESO was in development for more than twice as long as Skyrim, as an example (ESO was in development a year before Skyrim, yet released almost 30 months later).
This added complexity over other games adds cost to development. The cost of continual updates to MMO's after launch cost money, as do the expected bug fixes.[/quote] Yes, a box price would cover the cost of development, along with some profit. Then a subscription is needed to keep the game running.
One thing you have admitted to here - whether knowingly or not, is that you agree that MMO's need two sources of income to remain afloat.
Some games have this as a box cost and subscription, and I'm sure that works well for them (though to be fair, I can't think of many recently that had this model).
Other games have a box cost, charge for expansions, have a subscription fee and STILL have a cash shop.
What Intrepid are doing is dropping the box cost. This is so that there is a very low barrier to entry in to the game - so more players will be willing to give it a go.
Without the box cost, the only option left is some form of cash shop. Since pay to win cash shops turn people off games in large numbers, Intrepid decided to make it a cosmetic only cash shop that only turn a small number of people away, and that small number of people are more than made up for with the people that try the game out due to the low barrier to entry.
Something I think people are forgetting is that games like WoW charge a box cost, charge a subscription fee, charge for expansions and still have a cash shop.
Ashes will have no box cost, will have no expansion cost, has a subscription and has a cash shop.
It is an improvement over the incumbent - stop complaining about it.
You don't seem to appreciate how expensive game development can be. Yes, an handful of guys in their basement can crap out a hit in under a year, and make millions. That doesn't mean that game development is cheap. Just because some games are profitable at 60$, all game can be profitable at 60$. The fact is that every game is different and every company is different.
Another thing to consider is that microtransactions act kind of like flood gates. Let's say that a company needs 20% more funding to comfortably put out the game they promised. They can try to look for more investors, but that means that more people get a "say" in the direction of the game. It might become more about keeping investors happy than the players. An attractive option is selling cosmetics because it allows the company to maintain control of their vison for the game. The problem is that instead of getting a 20% increase in funds they get a 200% increase, and now they look greedy. (This was never the case for blizzard)
Only Intrepid knows why they went the cosmetic microtransactions route. Maybe it is greed? Clearly Intrepid decided that microtransactions for cosmetics was the best way to move forward years ago. Nothing is going to change that now. All we can really do is promise to quit if they make microtransactions more than they already are.
I am half expecting you to get frustrated and start linking "Jimquistion*" videos, but you seem to communicate better than the last handful of guys to bring this argument up. I agree with most of the sentiment about microtransactions being bad, but I accept the reality that they can do some good. If cosmetic microtransactions would have kept Wildstar or Darkfall 1 going. I would gladly welcome them.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Case in point. Microtransactions are paying a small additional fee to obtain something that you don't really need, but want. Correct?
In that case, most restaurants charge extra if you want an extra side of bacon. You don't need the bacon, but you want it. And you will pay a small additional charge for it. Bacon is good. Ergo, the purchase is good.
Ipso facto, some microtransactions can be good.
And before you throw out "but Karthos, it only pertains to online purchases", you can buy breakfast with an extra side of bacon online.
https://www.ihop.com/en/menu/sides/hickory-smoked-bacon-strips
Can you provide one example of a game where they actually spent more on the advertising the game then they did on development of the game?
That convenience is the ability to play the game. Microtransactions allow people who cannot afford a $60 box price to play the game. Other games have a F2P model with optional microtransactions. You allow those that can pay more to pay more, so those that cannot pay more, don't have to.
These two things exist regardless of a salesman or not.
Bread, Water, Vegetables, Ramen, these are necessities. That ketchup you put on your burger (luxury) with cheese (luxury) and bacon (luxury) is a luxury.
[/quote]
So the pool guy who sells you a pool ran around to your house for the first part of summer cranking up your heat when you were looking?
I think you mean a problem must exist, not must be created.
So, because other games have had shitty business practices when it comes to cosmetics, we should have Intrepid change their entire business model because the guy who isn't an expert has a really bad argument?
If you were arguing for a box price plus a month sub your argument could have had some traction. I can make the argument for a box price and a monthly sub, but that's not really what you are making an argument about.
You are making an argument against a cosmetic cash shop, and you really didn't make an good argument at that.