if people are willing to pay for additional cosmetics that is on them. I may not agree with higher price margins some other companies/corporations have tried to capitalize on in the industry.
An issue I would have with cosmetics would be that if they overstepped the boundary of world immersion vs theme park, especially for a game like this.
From my understanding, the cosmetics available through these pre-order packs are variants of things that are going to be found in the world already and more than likely will have variations of themselves aside from the pre-order exclusives in similarity. In a way, it's supporting the development of the game both physically through design progression/coding and financially.
If they didn't have obtainable variant options in-game and purchasable options for launch, then there would be issues with-in the community of the game and its success. Especially if the pre-order exclusives were going to be "cooler" or more "appealing" than options at launch.
Another issue I would see would be the dreaded RNG microtransactions that are essentially gambling. But that doesn't really need to be addressed as other corporations and companies in the industry have taken the brunt of that ridicule.
From my understanding, the cosmetics available through these pre-order packs are variants of things that are going to be found in the world already and more than likely will have variations of themselves aside from the pre-order exclusives in similarity. In a way, it's supporting the development of the game both physically through design progression/coding and financially.
Only parts of the cosmetics may be used by NPCs as needed. This was clarified by Steven recently.
Yes, in a way you are supporting the Dev teams incentive to create appearances that might not otherwise get created, and injecting funds to Intrepid that in theory goes to development.
If they didn't have obtainable variant options in-game and purchasable options for launch, then there would be issues with-in the community of the game and its success. Especially if the pre-order exclusives were going to be "cooler" or more "appealing" than options at launch.
Another issue I would see would be the dreaded RNG microtransactions that are essentially gambling. But that doesn't really need to be addressed as other corporations and companies in the industry have taken the brunt of that ridicule.
The appearances are said to be inferior to what is obtainable at end-game, but also inferior as they are full body sets that can't be pieced apart or dyed. This limits their use and value. They might only be cooler on a case by case basis or to someone who never achieves any end-game gear.
if people are willing to pay for additional cosmetics that is on them. I may not agree with higher price margins some other companies/corporations have tried to capitalize on in the industry.
An issue I would have with cosmetics would be that if they overstepped the boundary of world immersion vs theme park, especially for a game like this.
From my understanding, the cosmetics available through these pre-order packs are variants of things that are going to be found in the world already and more than likely will have variations of themselves aside from the pre-order exclusives in similarity. In a way, it's supporting the development of the game both physically through design progression/coding and financially.
If they didn't have obtainable variant options in-game and purchasable options for launch, then there would be issues with-in the community of the game and its success. Especially if the pre-order exclusives were going to be "cooler" or more "appealing" than options at launch.
Another issue I would see would be the dreaded RNG microtransactions that are essentially gambling. But that doesn't really need to be addressed as other corporations and companies in the industry have taken the brunt of that ridicule.
From my understanding, the cosmetics available through these pre-order packs are variants of things that are going to be found in the world already and more than likely will have variations of themselves aside from the pre-order exclusives in similarity. In a way, it's supporting the development of the game both physically through design progression/coding and financially.
Only parts of the cosmetics may be used by NPCs as needed. This was clarified by Steven recently.
Yes, in a way you are supporting the Dev teams incentive to create appearances that might not otherwise get created, and injecting funds to Intrepid that in theory goes to development.
If they didn't have obtainable variant options in-game and purchasable options for launch, then there would be issues with-in the community of the game and its success. Especially if the pre-order exclusives were going to be "cooler" or more "appealing" than options at launch.
Another issue I would see would be the dreaded RNG microtransactions that are essentially gambling. But that doesn't really need to be addressed as other corporations and companies in the industry have taken the brunt of that ridicule.
The appearances are said to be inferior to what is obtainable at end-game, but also inferior as they are full body sets that can't be pieced apart or dyed. This limits their use and value. They might only be cooler on a case by case basis or to someone who never achieves any end-game gear.
interesting,
from my understanding it was said that NPC's may have identical pieces as well as variants within the world, but variants of them will be available to players but that those specifically identical to the pre-order ones will not be as they are intended to be exclusive.
As expected, end game rewards are something to look forward to through progression for the player base.
if people are willing to pay for additional cosmetics that is on them. I may not agree with higher price margins some other companies/corporations have tried to capitalize on in the industry.
An issue I would have with cosmetics would be that if they overstepped the boundary of world immersion vs theme park, especially for a game like this.
From my understanding, the cosmetics available through these pre-order packs are variants of things that are going to be found in the world already and more than likely will have variations of themselves aside from the pre-order exclusives in similarity. In a way, it's supporting the development of the game both physically through design progression/coding and financially.
If they didn't have obtainable variant options in-game and purchasable options for launch, then there would be issues with-in the community of the game and its success. Especially if the pre-order exclusives were going to be "cooler" or more "appealing" than options at launch.
Another issue I would see would be the dreaded RNG microtransactions that are essentially gambling. But that doesn't really need to be addressed as other corporations and companies in the industry have taken the brunt of that ridicule.
if people are willing to pay for additional cosmetics that is on them. I may not agree with higher price margins some other companies/corporations have tried to capitalize on in the industry.
An issue I would have with cosmetics would be that if they overstepped the boundary of world immersion vs theme park, especially for a game like this.
From my understanding, the cosmetics available through these pre-order packs are variants of things that are going to be found in the world already and more than likely will have variations of themselves aside from the pre-order exclusives in similarity. In a way, it's supporting the development of the game both physically through design progression/coding and financially.
If they didn't have obtainable variant options in-game and purchasable options for launch, then there would be issues with-in the community of the game and its success. Especially if the pre-order exclusives were going to be "cooler" or more "appealing" than options at launch.
Another issue I would see would be the dreaded RNG microtransactions that are essentially gambling. But that doesn't really need to be addressed as other corporations and companies in the industry have taken the brunt of that ridicule.
thank you. I do recall them mentioning something about mounts and the exclusives in the pre-order packs versus their variants in the wild in the one of the latest streams. I could be crossing some information up. But if they were to do that with mounts/skins, I don't see why they wouldn't do something similar with the cosmetics. But, after reading into this I can see they mentioned taking pieces of said sets and utilizing them in combinations for players. That is what I have mixed up. thank you for providing the link. That's still cool to me.
Oh cool! I forgot about the legendary items as well.
Thanks!
Now whether you agree or disagree with his reasons is up to you. Personally I have no problem with a subscription and cosmetic only cash shop. The only time micro-transactions bother me is when they affect gameplay in some way. There have been many examples of this like Assassin's Creed Odyssey gimping exp gains to encourage players to buy exp boosts from the mtx store. That is NOT what Intrepid is doing here and it's important to note that.
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
This makes me think you play games like League of Leg and think skins help you win... Cuz trust me, your costume doesn't make you stronker*.
This makes me think you never really played a RPG in earnest, and all you wanted to play was a competitive action or shooter game.
You outright ignore all of the points I made in regards to the issue of cosmetic microtransactions; rude.
My opinion comes off as insanely unpopular, because people look forward to the game - this, if I will have to remind everyone being so intensely against what I am stating, is not a new phenomenon and is actually quite common. It is the inherent and coherent thought of the flock, of the masses. There is something people like, and in certain cases, worship, so any criticism of the the certain targetted product is bound to be the statement of an enemy - which is a ill-suited perspective to hold.
I criticize, because I love. I criticize, because I am passionate.
Microtransactions is a video-game sin, and has so far proven to be regardless of earlier statements of developers.
In most recent time - Fallout 76 and Assassin's Creed: Valhalla. Both games many probably bought into due to what I would call worship of a studio.
One promised no pay to win mechanics, it would have cosmetic microtransactions - those were already terrible, buuuut... the game was a little too small, too unpopular to actually earn big buck - so pay to win was needed to make a profit.
Assassin's Creed: Valhalla is more story-driven. Starting off in Origins with some delicious microtransactions, selling weapons with higher damage and stats. Leading into Odyssey which only sold XP boosts and some skins, probably because Origins did not sell enough microtransactions, so they had to try a new tactics - make the game an insufferable grind, sell some XP boosts. AC: Valhalla went full on cosmetic, offering terrible in game garments in order to sell the online store garments. Now it sells XP boosts and what not too.
World of Warcraft have seen an increase in it's online store, which seems to go hand in hand with the quality of the game itself. As more is sold on the online store, the worse the game itself becomes.
There is a connection between microtransactions and the overall quality of a game. The only game I would argue that have struck a fair balance here, is Final Fantasy XIV - their cosmetics in the store are downright ugly compared to anything you can earn in game. Other than that you can buy some mounts and small pets. But they do of course also sell story-skips, which is necessary if you want to play another race in the game, or you can just buy a race-changing potion. So not even Final Fantasy XIV is that great in that regard - but the quality of the game is actually great, but it is clear that many systems in the game that are largely bothersome, remains in because that means that their online store can profit.
A box-price and subscription fee is the most consumer friendly option in existence, and one that can net a profit. Not as much as microtransactions, but if someone wants to balance something that is good for business and good for consumers, then box office and subscription fee is the way to go. It is a simple concept; this means the incentive is to keep the game interesting, engaging and fun. Microtransactions shifts that focus, to keep the game manipulative, and a chore - manipulative in the sense that it'll have you repeat chores over and over again to reach a goal - aka almost every MMORPG we have out there right now, causing us to look for a new MMO which risks doing exactly the same due to the alluring profitability that is microtransactions.
As for some other points. People can not afford a 60 dollar box price? I am a student in a scandinavian country, one of the harshest taxed places in the world - I recently lost my part time job as a result of covid and can still afford atleast two games at the price of 60 dollar. If you earn an income much less than my own at this point, then the least you should worry about is buying a video game - sorry to say. Groups that would have less disposable income than me, would probably be unemployed single mothers, immigrants and then homeless people, in that order. Disregarding socities outside what we know as the west.
That said - I am only stating these things out of a love for a genre that I see doomed time and time again due to the same repeated mistakes. And I am stating these things out of a love for a hobby, which I see continueally destroyed by microtransactions, frustration because everyone else continues to ignore the problem that is microtransactions, and mild anger because it presents a threat to other less fortunate people - in this case the people with a compulsive buying disorder who can not afford a 60 dollar box price, but they are more likely to throw more money into an online store which leads to several more years of absolute pain.
Games are profitable without microtransactions, they would not be made if they were not, games that actually do not have microtransactions, would not be made and make a profit - if they were not profitable (duh). Even EA, yes, Electronic Arts, made a single player game without microtransactions - and it was profitable, and it wasn't even 60 dollar either.
Microtransactions are a danger, to the quality of the games, to the consumers and more so to less fortunate consumers. Encouraging it and continual developement of it is just beyond ludicrous.
Anyway, I am hoping to be proven wrong. And I do hope that I can say that I would feel good about actually playing Ashes of Creation. So far, I can just encourage skepticism.
Many should probably have learned from Cyberpunk 2077 by now, do not worship developers... ever - remain skeptical.
It won't happen. Even if a game nowadays did completely do away with any and all cash shops, having a $75 barrier to try out a game is dumb.
I have tons of games in my Steam library that I wouldn't have bought if they didn't go on sale because I had 0 interest in paying $60+ for them, but when they go on sale for $10 or $20, sure, why not? People are way more likely to try, and then get hooked on a game if the only barrier to trying out the game is $15. Don't like the game? Well, you only lost $15 compared to the $75 you'd have lost if it was B2P + Sub. Having only a sub fee means it's way more likely to get more players than if they had both sub and box cost.
0
CypherMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I would much rather have a subscription and a cosmetics-only cash shop than have to convince all my friends to pay up front for a game and still have to pay for a subscription and then half of us get the first expansion at full price while the other half wait 6 months for it to drop on price.
I’m certainly anti microtransaction but as long as a game I’m already paying for isn’t stripped barren just to sell me the stuff that should have been in the game OR riddled with loot boxes and pay to win items, then it’s not a bother to me. More free cosmetics will surely come in each major expansion on top of the base game being rich with them already (you can find Steven’s quotes) so I’m totally okay with having a cosmetic shop as well, if it means not having all that bad stuff I mentioned.
People can not afford a 60 dollar box price? I am a student in a scandinavian country, one of the harshest taxed places in the world - I recently lost my part time job as a result of covid and can still afford atleast two games at the price of 60 dollar.
While that argument sounds strong, its not really relevant. The issue is not so much whether a person can pay $60 for a game, its whether the person wants to use that $60 on a game instead of all other uses for that money. That is why the Law of Demand exists. It sounded like you referenced being in college. If you haven't had a basic economics course in college, then Google the Law of Demand. As a price increases, purchases drop; and, vice versa.
Games are profitable without microtransactions, they would not be made if they were not, games that actually do not have microtransactions, would not be made and make a profit - if they were not profitable (duh). Even EA, yes, Electronic Arts, made a single player game without microtransactions - and it was profitable, and it wasn't even 60 dollar either.
Single player games do not require frequent content updates. If MMO's don't do content updates, then a large portion of the player base leaves and the game loses the massive from MMO. Additionally, single player games tend to be relatively small compared to an MMO. Even with Cyberpunk being as large as it is only made a map size of about 100-110 km². Ashes will have a map of 480 km².
The different games genres do not face the same required costs.
What is crazy about the constant microtransaction argument is that cosmetic microtransactions are one of the things about the game that seem to be the most settled. Like there is some wiggle room on so many other areas of the game, but the whole microtransaction and sub-fee thing is really well documented and explained many times.
It is clear to me that anyone arguing against Intrepid's sales model at this point is doing so out of personal bias or greed. Nobody is going to be the hero that made Intrepid change their mind on this issue. At the end of the day they are running a business and need to get paid. It is better for us as gamers if the DEVs are well paid, and don't have to petition outside investors to keep the project going.
What is crazy about the constant microtransaction argument is that cosmetic microtransactions are one of the things about the game that seem to be the most settled. Like there is some wiggle room on so many other areas of the game, but the whole microtransaction and sub-fee thing is really well documented and explained many times.
It is clear to me that anyone arguing against Intrepid's sales model at this point is doing so out of personal bias or greed. Nobody is going to be the hero that made Intrepid change their mind on this issue. At the end of the day they are running a business and need to get paid. It is better for us as gamers if the DEVs are well paid, and don't have to petition outside investors to keep the project going.
Just because it is set in stone, doesn't mean it's not open to discussion. It just means that it won't really matter. I just think it's adorable that you don't think adding MTs on top of a sub-fee is greed on the devs part. Or that it won't take away from things available in-game.
0
FuryBladeborneMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited March 2021
This Game Informer¹ article describes that in the 3rd quarter of last year Activision received 1.95 billion in revenue with 1.2 billion coming from microtransactions. Just for fun, assume that Activision suddenly stops using microtransactions. If a company suddenly loses over 50% of revenue, that company is probably not going to continue exist for long unless that revenue stream is replaced. If revenue is necessary, it's not greed.
In the same quarter, Activision earned a 15.83% return on investment². That means Activision earned 15.83% more money than it spent during that time period. That is a strong return. However, if Activision did not receive any money from microtransactions during that period, instead of being profitable Activision would be running a serious loss. Given that "Activision Blizzard, Inc., is the world's most successful standalone interactive entertainment company"², I doubt many companies that do less well can afford to give up microtransactions as a source of revenue. If they did, then a very sharp increase in price would have to be applied to all games.
Just because it is set in stone, doesn't mean it's not open to discussion. It just means that it won't really matter. I just think it's adorable that you don't think adding MTs on top of a sub-fee is greed on the devs part. Or that it won't take away from things available in-game.
Without solid funding there would be no game to argue about. Steven putting down 40million is a good start, a successful kick starter helps, but for a new company to break into the industry comfortably with a game of this scale they are going to as much money as they can get. If the money does not come from us supporters it will come from outside investors.
Listen to a Activision conference call next time they have one. It might open your eyes to the type of people that fund these games. They are not worried about how WOW can be a better game, they are worried about why WOW is not doing more to be like Candy Crush and making more money for them.
The Microtransactions currently help to keep the game under Intrepid's control. You might not have seen a game have to "Shop" around looking for investors to stay alive, but it is not good for anyone, except for the investors.
We should be praising Intrepid for sticking to a cosmetics only approach rather than relentless attacking them because "Microtransaction Bad".
We should be praising Intrepid for sticking to a cosmetics only approach rather than relentless attacking them because "Microtransaction Bad".
Indeed.
While I am not necessarily 100% keen on every aspect of this game, if Intrepid end up having to shop it around to investors, the game will never come out as it is currently described to us.
My argument isn't "Microtransactions bad" You always try to strawman things. It's getting old. I've mentioned time and time again, that the "cosmetic only" argument is asinine. The ability to separate oneself from the pack is an incredibly important aspect of an MMO or any multi-player activity, that's why the skins exists in the first place.
Secondly, I am not against the financing pre-launch. It's the post-launch MTs that I can't stand. Because it always leads to mediocre options in the actual game. Be it armour, or housing. Furthermore. The whole cosmetics for mounts is quite silly, as it already detracts from animal husbandry, which, provided it won't be scrapped will be soley based on arbitrary stats. (dismount chance, swim speed, run speed etc.) I realise the last bit of that is speculation. But surely you can see that if they sell those things in a shop, they are not going to make them available for professions. Much like the cosmetic armours/clothing won't be available through other means.
Like I said, it always detracts from the experience. Even if the cash-shop items are just recolours. It means they could've had a dye system.
0
FuryBladeborneMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
It's the post-launch MTs that I can't stand. Because it always leads to mediocre options in the actual game. Be it armour, or housing...mounts...
Equitable cosmetics, both from a quantity and quality standpoint, are achievable through in-game means.[5] Cosmetics achievable in-game will be on-par, and in the case of legendary skins, even more elaborate than shop items.[6][7][2]
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
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
Component pieces of cosmetic armor may be reused in other in-game achievable gear sets.[6]
From an armor standpoint, we cut armor sets up into many different pieces. These pieces can sometimes be used as part of other sets, that may include helmets, wrists, gloves etc. So while you will not see an achievable white version of the corvid castigator set in the game for example, you may see its shoulder piece used in another set, or its leggings, or wrist piece used in another set (not every piece as to form the whole set, but perhaps a couple pieces)... https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Cosmetics
Since the cosmetics for houses, mounts, etc. are all cosmetics, then presumably they all follow the same rules. If they stick to their word, then they are not making mediocre options in the actual game. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that it will be easy to earn those cosmetics.
Like I said, it always detracts from the experience. Even if the cash-shop items are just recolours. It means they could've had a dye system.
Interestingly, there is likely going to be a dye system, but cash shop items won't be a part of it (or so I understand).
Many games out there do indeed do a poor job of providing players with good looking equipment in game, leaving it to the cash shop to make this happen. This is absolutely a thing.
However, Steven is on record saying that this is not what he wants for Ashes.
We have a choice to either believe Steven, or to not believe him. Thing is, we have to make that choice in relation to all aspects of the game, not just the ones we chose.
If we have aspects of the game that we are excited about, and we believe Intrepid will pull them off, then we are believing Steven. If that is the case, believe him here as well.
My argument isn't "Microtransactions bad" You always try to strawman things. It's getting old. I've mentioned time and time again, that the "cosmetic only" argument is asinine. The ability to separate oneself from the pack is an incredibly important aspect of an MMO or any multi-player activity, that's why the skins exists in the first place.
Secondly, I am not against the financing pre-launch. It's the post-launch MTs that I can't stand. Because it always leads to mediocre options in the actual game. Be it armour, or housing. Furthermore. The whole cosmetics for mounts is quite silly, as it already detracts from animal husbandry, which, provided it won't be scrapped will be soley based on arbitrary stats. (dismount chance, swim speed, run speed etc.) I realise the last bit of that is speculation. But surely you can see that if they sell those things in a shop, they are not going to make them available for professions. Much like the cosmetic armours/clothing won't be available through other means.
Like I said, it always detracts from the experience. Even if the cash-shop items are just recolours. It means they could've had a dye system.
Your argument comes off as just "Microtransactions bad".
You say "The whole cosmetic only is asinine", I disagree. It is better than most company's are willing to do. It could be loot box tier bad.
You say separating oneself from the pack is incredibly important, I say... meh.
(I was born in the cave of "Your gear is how you look"... I did not see cosmetics until I was a man.)
These are just our opinions. I am more concerned about how cosmetics actually effect the game. Both from a gameplay and financial prospective.
Trying to stealman arguments for Microtransactions being bad for Ashes. I got two angles I find reasonable.
You could take the philosophical stance that all things that are achievable in a game should be achieved with game play. To me that is a noble prospective, but IG has decided that they can not afford the luxury of adhering to that philosophy. It is unfortunate when so many other aspects of the game echo that mindset.
Sadly things cost money. I explained it better in my prior post, but we really don't want IG having to get in bed with anyone but us the players for funding.
You could take the stance that the cosmetic cash shop items undermine the achievements of in game achievements. This is true in part. We can speculate on the extent of the situation, but we have statements from the sandal god himself saying that achievable in game cosmetics will look better. If I were to bet, I would say that store bought cosmetics look better until about level 40, but we really don't know because we have mostly seen level 10 gear. I did clarify personally that the current store cosmetics are functionally interior to normal in game gear. https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/271612#Comment_271612
Arguments about how Microtransactions are greed do not hold water for Ashes in my opinion. If they were being greedy they would be selling loot boxes or something with no apology's. Instead we have a rational explanation like this: https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/271565#Comment_271565
Remember you are dealing with a for profit business not a non-profit. They do want to get rich, but they also want to make a kick ass MMO on the way. The success of AOC could lead to other great games in IGs future.
adding to this:
The Webshop Founder Pack cosmetics are just full-body costumes.
If seperating yourself from the pack is the primary thing you want, then all the full-body costumes would be a no-go anyway, as seperation through them is downright impossible, unless they are a one-of-a-kind cosmetic item on your server.
You seperate yourself through the combination of multiple single piece cosmetics aquired either through the ingame mechanics or the cash shop we will see one day as well as both the Dye and Transmog feature
You seperate yourself through the combination of multiple single piece cosmetics aquired either through the ingame mechanics or the cash shop we will see one day as well as both the Dye and Transmog feature
Also, wing the Boob Slider all the way to the "tiny" side, as that's likely to be unique across the entire game, not just the server.
Comments
An issue I would have with cosmetics would be that if they overstepped the boundary of world immersion vs theme park, especially for a game like this.
From my understanding, the cosmetics available through these pre-order packs are variants of things that are going to be found in the world already and more than likely will have variations of themselves aside from the pre-order exclusives in similarity. In a way, it's supporting the development of the game both physically through design progression/coding and financially.
If they didn't have obtainable variant options in-game and purchasable options for launch, then there would be issues with-in the community of the game and its success. Especially if the pre-order exclusives were going to be "cooler" or more "appealing" than options at launch.
Another issue I would see would be the dreaded RNG microtransactions that are essentially gambling. But that doesn't really need to be addressed as other corporations and companies in the industry have taken the brunt of that ridicule.
Yes, in a way you are supporting the Dev teams incentive to create appearances that might not otherwise get created, and injecting funds to Intrepid that in theory goes to development.
The appearances are said to be inferior to what is obtainable at end-game, but also inferior as they are full body sets that can't be pieced apart or dyed. This limits their use and value. They might only be cooler on a case by case basis or to someone who never achieves any end-game gear.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
@Enigmatic Sage
There will NOT be obtainable variants of the preorder cosmetics in the game. This has been confirmed twice by IS.
Once during the November QnA. Once a couple of weeks back in a forum post by Steven
interesting,
from my understanding it was said that NPC's may have identical pieces as well as variants within the world, but variants of them will be available to players but that those specifically identical to the pre-order ones will not be as they are intended to be exclusive.
As expected, end game rewards are something to look forward to through progression for the player base.
mind sharing that link with the exact wording? would be much appreciated
LOL... you're a friendly one
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/271565#Comment_271565
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
thank you. I do recall them mentioning something about mounts and the exclusives in the pre-order packs versus their variants in the wild in the one of the latest streams. I could be crossing some information up. But if they were to do that with mounts/skins, I don't see why they wouldn't do something similar with the cosmetics. But, after reading into this I can see they mentioned taking pieces of said sets and utilizing them in combinations for players. That is what I have mixed up. thank you for providing the link. That's still cool to me.
Oh cool! I forgot about the legendary items as well.
Thanks!
Now whether you agree or disagree with his reasons is up to you. Personally I have no problem with a subscription and cosmetic only cash shop. The only time micro-transactions bother me is when they affect gameplay in some way. There have been many examples of this like Assassin's Creed Odyssey gimping exp gains to encourage players to buy exp boosts from the mtx store. That is NOT what Intrepid is doing here and it's important to note that.
After all, a game has to make money.
I have tons of games in my Steam library that I wouldn't have bought if they didn't go on sale because I had 0 interest in paying $60+ for them, but when they go on sale for $10 or $20, sure, why not? People are way more likely to try, and then get hooked on a game if the only barrier to trying out the game is $15. Don't like the game? Well, you only lost $15 compared to the $75 you'd have lost if it was B2P + Sub. Having only a sub fee means it's way more likely to get more players than if they had both sub and box cost.
I’m certainly anti microtransaction but as long as a game I’m already paying for isn’t stripped barren just to sell me the stuff that should have been in the game OR riddled with loot boxes and pay to win items, then it’s not a bother to me. More free cosmetics will surely come in each major expansion on top of the base game being rich with them already (you can find Steven’s quotes) so I’m totally okay with having a cosmetic shop as well, if it means not having all that bad stuff I mentioned.
You can't just list the games that did it badly and say it never works, you also need to list the games that do it well.
The different games genres do not face the same required costs.
It is clear to me that anyone arguing against Intrepid's sales model at this point is doing so out of personal bias or greed. Nobody is going to be the hero that made Intrepid change their mind on this issue. At the end of the day they are running a business and need to get paid. It is better for us as gamers if the DEVs are well paid, and don't have to petition outside investors to keep the project going.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Just because it is set in stone, doesn't mean it's not open to discussion. It just means that it won't really matter. I just think it's adorable that you don't think adding MTs on top of a sub-fee is greed on the devs part. Or that it won't take away from things available in-game.
In the same quarter, Activision earned a 15.83% return on investment². That means Activision earned 15.83% more money than it spent during that time period. That is a strong return. However, if Activision did not receive any money from microtransactions during that period, instead of being profitable Activision would be running a serious loss. Given that "Activision Blizzard, Inc., is the world's most successful standalone interactive entertainment company"², I doubt many companies that do less well can afford to give up microtransactions as a source of revenue. If they did, then a very sharp increase in price would have to be applied to all games.
¹https://www.gameinformer.com/2020/11/03/activision-blizzard-microtransactions-netted-over-12-billion-last-quarter
²https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ATVI/activision-blizzard/roi
Without solid funding there would be no game to argue about. Steven putting down 40million is a good start, a successful kick starter helps, but for a new company to break into the industry comfortably with a game of this scale they are going to as much money as they can get. If the money does not come from us supporters it will come from outside investors.
Listen to a Activision conference call next time they have one. It might open your eyes to the type of people that fund these games. They are not worried about how WOW can be a better game, they are worried about why WOW is not doing more to be like Candy Crush and making more money for them.
The Microtransactions currently help to keep the game under Intrepid's control. You might not have seen a game have to "Shop" around looking for investors to stay alive, but it is not good for anyone, except for the investors.
We should be praising Intrepid for sticking to a cosmetics only approach rather than relentless attacking them because "Microtransaction Bad".
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
While I am not necessarily 100% keen on every aspect of this game, if Intrepid end up having to shop it around to investors, the game will never come out as it is currently described to us.
Secondly, I am not against the financing pre-launch. It's the post-launch MTs that I can't stand. Because it always leads to mediocre options in the actual game. Be it armour, or housing. Furthermore. The whole cosmetics for mounts is quite silly, as it already detracts from animal husbandry, which, provided it won't be scrapped will be soley based on arbitrary stats. (dismount chance, swim speed, run speed etc.) I realise the last bit of that is speculation. But surely you can see that if they sell those things in a shop, they are not going to make them available for professions. Much like the cosmetic armours/clothing won't be available through other means.
Like I said, it always detracts from the experience. Even if the cash-shop items are just recolours. It means they could've had a dye system.
Equitable cosmetics, both from a quantity and quality standpoint, are achievable through in-game means.[5] Cosmetics achievable in-game will be on-par, and in the case of legendary skins, even more elaborate than shop items.[6][7][2]
- 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
- 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
Component pieces of cosmetic armor may be reused in other in-game achievable gear sets.[6]From an armor standpoint, we cut armor sets up into many different pieces. These pieces can sometimes be used as part of other sets, that may include helmets, wrists, gloves etc. So while you will not see an achievable white version of the corvid castigator set in the game for example, you may see its shoulder piece used in another set, or its leggings, or wrist piece used in another set (not every piece as to form the whole set, but perhaps a couple pieces)...
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Cosmetics
Since the cosmetics for houses, mounts, etc. are all cosmetics, then presumably they all follow the same rules. If they stick to their word, then they are not making mediocre options in the actual game. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that it will be easy to earn those cosmetics.
Interestingly, there is likely going to be a dye system, but cash shop items won't be a part of it (or so I understand).
Many games out there do indeed do a poor job of providing players with good looking equipment in game, leaving it to the cash shop to make this happen. This is absolutely a thing.
However, Steven is on record saying that this is not what he wants for Ashes.
We have a choice to either believe Steven, or to not believe him. Thing is, we have to make that choice in relation to all aspects of the game, not just the ones we chose.
If we have aspects of the game that we are excited about, and we believe Intrepid will pull them off, then we are believing Steven. If that is the case, believe him here as well.
Your argument comes off as just "Microtransactions bad".
You say "The whole cosmetic only is asinine", I disagree. It is better than most company's are willing to do. It could be loot box tier bad.
You say separating oneself from the pack is incredibly important, I say... meh.
(I was born in the cave of "Your gear is how you look"... I did not see cosmetics until I was a man.)
These are just our opinions. I am more concerned about how cosmetics actually effect the game. Both from a gameplay and financial prospective.
Trying to stealman arguments for Microtransactions being bad for Ashes. I got two angles I find reasonable.
You could take the philosophical stance that all things that are achievable in a game should be achieved with game play. To me that is a noble prospective, but IG has decided that they can not afford the luxury of adhering to that philosophy. It is unfortunate when so many other aspects of the game echo that mindset.
Sadly things cost money. I explained it better in my prior post, but we really don't want IG having to get in bed with anyone but us the players for funding.
You could take the stance that the cosmetic cash shop items undermine the achievements of in game achievements. This is true in part. We can speculate on the extent of the situation, but we have statements from the sandal god himself saying that achievable in game cosmetics will look better. If I were to bet, I would say that store bought cosmetics look better until about level 40, but we really don't know because we have mostly seen level 10 gear. I did clarify personally that the current store cosmetics are functionally interior to normal in game gear. https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/271612#Comment_271612
They have a planned Dye system as well: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Dyes
Arguments about how Microtransactions are greed do not hold water for Ashes in my opinion. If they were being greedy they would be selling loot boxes or something with no apology's. Instead we have a rational explanation like this:
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/271565#Comment_271565
Remember you are dealing with a for profit business not a non-profit. They do want to get rich, but they also want to make a kick ass MMO on the way. The success of AOC could lead to other great games in IGs future.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
The Webshop Founder Pack cosmetics are just full-body costumes.
If seperating yourself from the pack is the primary thing you want, then all the full-body costumes would be a no-go anyway, as seperation through them is downright impossible, unless they are a one-of-a-kind cosmetic item on your server.
You seperate yourself through the combination of multiple single piece cosmetics aquired either through the ingame mechanics or the cash shop we will see one day as well as both the Dye and Transmog feature
Also, wing the Boob Slider all the way to the "tiny" side, as that's likely to be unique across the entire game, not just the server.