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!

Monthly fee and microtransactions?

Looking at the packs it seems to me like the game si intended to have a monthly fee and microtransactions.
Is this true? It feels like double dipping to me.
«13

Comments

  • George BlackGeorge Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    You forgot these:
    No p2w
    No box price
  • Note: Of the two I much prefer a simple monthly fee. Microtransactions IMO have ruined the MMORPG space.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    profk wrote: »
    Note: Of the two I much prefer a simple monthly fee. Microtransactions IMO have ruined the MMORPG space.
    Name one AAA MMO that only has a subscription fee and nothing else.
  • profkprofk Member
    edited September 22
    Myself Im willing to pay an initial box price but it should come with the equivalent number of months free, so what Im really doing is pre-paying a few months.
  • What @George Black said.

    If the microtransactions are only for cosmetics that don't effect gameplay, then that's on the people who throw intrepid money.
  • George BlackGeorge Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    The shop will only sell cosmetics.
    I am not too crazy for cosmetics in games, however you need to realize that with todays technology and production capabilities, there are standards that need to be met when making a good mmo.
    And that's expensive.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    profk wrote: »
    Myself Im willing to pay an initial box price but it should come with the equivalent number of months free, so what Im really doing is pre-paying a few months.

    That doesn't answer the question.

    I would personally like it if the game was free, I really enjoy not spending money.

    However, we need to pay for the game to be run, to be worked on and to be improved upon.

    I asked you to name one AAA MMO that only has a subscription fee, and nothing else. You failed to do this.

    That is because every AAA MMO needs at least two streams of revenue. There is a box cost, a monthly fee, and microtransactions.

    Some games, such as WoW, actually use all three.

    Ashes NEEDS to use two of these to remain viable as a product, and for Intrepid to remain viable a a company.

    Having a box cost that also provides a subscription worth the same value of that box cost is in fact no box cost - one could argue that Ashes has a $15 box cost, and that cost comes with one months worth of subscription - but that is effectively no box cost.

    In order for it to be an actual box cost, the game would need to be selling for $45+, and coming with one month of subscription time.

    Point is, every AAA MMO has two revenue streams. It isn't double dipping, as you state, it is simply remaining viable.
  • TalentsTalents Member, Intrepid Pack
    WoW - Box price, sub, mtx
    FF14 - Box price, sub, mtx
    ESO - Box price, "optional" sub, mtx
    BDO - Box price, mtx
    OSRS - Sub, mtx (bonds)
    GW2 - Box price, mtx
    RS3 - Sub, mtx
    New World - Box price, mtx

    Basically, good luck finding one without more than 1 revenue stream unless it's a F2P P2W one
    nI17Ea4.png
  • profkprofk Member
    edited September 23
    "I asked you to name one AAA MMO that only has a subscription fee, and nothing else. You failed to do this."

    Actually I just didnt see your post til now.

    Guild Wars 1 and 2
    AEON when it was subscription
    Age of Conan when it was subscription
    DCUO before it went F2P
    WOW fror years (I have no idea what ist doing now)
    City of Heroes.
    Secret World when it was subscription

    Those are just the ones I played, there were many more.

    Quite a few games survived well on subscription alone.

    Arenanet has quite successfully demonstrated that you can just live on box price if you predict your back-end expenses well and build them into the box price up front.

    A subscription game puts the focus on *entertainment*. if people are being entertained they continue to play and pay, if not they stop subscribing.

    F2P puts the focus on selling people shit and distorts the whole game around it. I was CTO of 3 companies that did "F2P" games and I hated what we did to their designs to make those financially successful.

    The lure of microtransactions was that they were going to make the game "free". Now instead, we are back to the subscription fee PLUS an added tax?

    MTX are garbage that distract developers from creating fun and turn those unwilling to pay them into second class citizens of the game community.



  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    profk wrote: »
    "I asked you to name one AAA MMO that only has a subscription fee, and nothing else. You failed to do this."

    Actually I just didnt see your post til now.

    Guild Wars 1 and 2
    AEON when it was subscription
    Age of Conan when it was subscription
    DCUO before it went F2P
    WOW fror years (I have no idea what ist doing now)
    City of Heroes.
    Secret World when it was subscription

    Those are just the ones I played, there were many more.

    Quite a few games survived well on subscription alone.

    My friend, you would have been better off just pretending this thread didnt exist.

    Keep in mind, your claim is that the above games have a subscription fee and nothing else.

    Guild Wars (either of them) never had subscription fees at all. GW had an initial box cost, and that was it for a while. Then when that stopped selling but people kept playing (requiring the servers to be kept on), they added microtransactions. GW2 had microtransactions from launch (the gem store).

    Right here, in an effort to point out AAA MMO's with a subscription fee and nothing else you have immediately hit on two MMO's that have literally no subscription fee, but both a box cost and microtransactions.

    It doesnt get better for you after that though.

    Aion, what I assume you mean by Aeon, had a box cost and subscription at launch. It is now free to play, though with microtransactions (and is highly P2W from what I understand).

    Age of Conan had a box cost and subscription. You are trying to find games with just a subscription (ie, no box cost).

    DCUO had a box cost and subscription at launch.

    WoW has always had a box cost and subscription, and now also had microtransactions.

    CoH/CoV had a box cost for each game at launch, as well as a subscription.

    Secret World launched with a box cost.

    I am wondering if you are simply unfamiliar with the term "box cost" and the fact that Ashes doesnt have one - as literally every game you listed above had a box cost at launch.
  • profkprofk Member
    edited September 23
    Reading a bit fast are you?

    "Arenanet has quite successfully demonstrated that you can just live on box price if you predict your back-end expenses well and build them into the box price up front."

    As for the rest, all of the other games gave you back your box cost in free sub months.

    Thank you for playing.

    //plonk
  • JustVineJustVine Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Pretty sure GW1 is famously not a sub based game...

    Anyway, I get that you are upset about microtransactions. But a purely cosmetic based shop is not the problem. The sub pays for core development.You have to have way to pay modelers. Good graphic designers aren't cheap. Neither are live mods, back end devs, pr, marketing, and development staff. Subs are for core development and backend only.

    I doubt you would argue we should be getting the quantity and quality of a well implemented cosmetic shop as part of the sub right? You don't want all those pet skins and costumes 'with purchase'? So where should the extra money come from? The people who want the extra superficial product to begin with. Not the regular player who just wants to play the game. If you include these with sub, people like George Black don't play because the sub fee is now too high. If you have no cosmetic shop you don't get the bonus money from people like me. Plain and simple.

    It is an excellent way to fund the graphics part of a team post launch for non-core content. I am more than happy for the money raised on costumes to help everyone including myself get cool boss fights, new in game obtainable armor models depending on the designs, and excellent marketing to attract new players or whatever.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited September 24
    profk wrote: »

    As for the rest, all of the other games gave you back your box cost in free sub months.

    No they didnt.

    Some of them did as promotions, but most of them absolutely did not.

    WoW, as an example, had an initial box cost of $60, and that came with one months worth of subscription.

    Either way, they still had a box cost.
  • George BlackGeorge Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited September 23
    If you cant affort a ferrari go buy with a bicycle.
    At this point you are here to cause shit. Nobody else has a problem.
    Joined 2 days ago?
    Go get a job or smthg.
  • I am happy with the proposed monetization of Ashes.
    $15/month minimum, optionally pay extra if you want to increase your wardrobe (admittedly a wardrobe which also has mounts and building skins!).
    For me, the only bitter pill to swallow is that a low level character can look like they have awe inspiring end-game gear if they bought the cosmetics.
    If they need to have a cosmetics shop to cover the game costs then that's how it has to be.
    Forum_Signature.png
  • JustVineJustVine Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    This isn't going to happen but, it would be cool if there were tiers of the cash shop tied to level. Most stuff is readily available especially rp focused ones but some building, mount, pet, and gear skins
  • profk wrote: »
    Looking at the packs it seems to me like the game si intended to have a monthly fee and microtransactions.
    Is this true? It feels like double dipping to me.

    The microtransactions are going to just be cosmetic. People won't be able to power past you by spending RL cash. And, it's an extra source of income to help make the game better. You're not going to be forced into buying anything. For you, if you're not buying cosmetics, the game can indeed just have the one monthly fee "dip".
    Daveywavey-member.png
  • I’m not a fan of microtransactions at all. I’d much rather have a box cost + subscription. In general I’d like every player to have the same gaming experience, regardless of the size of your wallet. I think games with any type of microtransactions often create systems that reduce the in-game experience for the sake of monetization. And that definitely include visuals.

    I know of the pledge Intrepid has made about paid cosmetics being non-tradable, the game being non-p2w etc. It is however also important that the in-game cosmetics have equally desirable and unique appearances. Preferably even better. At least to me, an important factor in grinding to obtain specific gear is it’s visual appearance (as well as stats ofc). If 50% of players are running around in paid armor and the rest of us can’t get something at least equally stunning by working for it in-game, I’ll eventually lose motivation. If gear were to be ranked by visual appearance alone, I don’t think paid cosmetics should be created with higher than A-rank, while in-game gear should have visual appearances up to S-rank.

    Having the microtransactions in the first place also creates the risk of them becoming too dependent on that revenue. The distance to bad decisions for the sake of increased profits is unfortunately not very far. It would certainly not be the first game to be guilty of moving in such a direction.

    I remain hopeful though.
  • profk wrote: »
    Looking at the packs it seems to me like the game si intended to have a monthly fee and microtransactions.
    Is this true? It feels like double dipping to me.

    Agree, that's the one thing I dislike with Ashes. Cash-shop. Allready.
    You want to pay subscription to avoid having any cash-shops ruining the game. Not to have them both.
    I think buying cosmetics is almost as bad as P2w, because Cosmetics is a huge part of an MMORPG, and if you can buy things for real money to look cool. Then what is the point?

    I hate that this is the new standard of games. I would normally never play a game with a cash-shop if it's an MMORPG or RPG, but Ashes can be an exception knowing that Steven is very well aware of the problem with Pw2 and all of that, and has a good vision and ideal for the game. But still..
    Im like the King of Sweden. Except I don't wear funny hats.

    img]
  • George BlackGeorge Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    Odal wrote: »
    profk wrote: »
    Looking at the packs it seems to me like the game si intended to have a monthly fee and microtransactions.
    Is this true? It feels like double dipping to me.

    Agree, that's the one thing I dislike with Ashes. Cash-shop. Allready.
    You want to pay subscription to avoid having any cash-shops ruining the game. Not to have them both.
    I think buying cosmetics is almost as bad as P2w, because Cosmetics is a huge part of an MMORPG, and if you can buy things for real money to look cool. Then what is the point?

    I hate that this is the new standard of games. I would normally never play a game with a cash-shop if it's an MMORPG or RPG, but Ashes can be an exception knowing that Steven is very well aware of the problem with Pw2 and all of that, and has a good vision and ideal for the game. But still..

    You just made this account.
  • George BlackGeorge Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    Odal wrote: »
    profk wrote: »
    Looking at the packs it seems to me like the game si intended to have a monthly fee and microtransactions.
    Is this true? It feels like double dipping to me.

    Agree, that's the one thing I dislike with Ashes. Cash-shop. Allready.
    You want to pay subscription to avoid having any cash-shops ruining the game. Not to have them both.
    I think buying cosmetics is almost as bad as P2w, because Cosmetics is a huge part of an MMORPG, and if you can buy things for real money to look cool. Then what is the point?

    I hate that this is the new standard of games. I would normally never play a game with a cash-shop if it's an MMORPG or RPG, but Ashes can be an exception knowing that Steven is very well aware of the problem with Pw2 and all of that, and has a good vision and ideal for the game. But still..

    You just made this account.

    Fuck it. Ill take it back.
    Sus as it may seem that a new acc takes aim at the cash shop, I find myself agreeing about the "new stardard of gaming", which is gear looks for real money.

    Still it is what it is in 2021, and since it doesnt affect progression people should temper their opinions as to avoid spreading misinformation.

    There is no p2w. That's the main thing.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Odal wrote: »
    profk wrote: »
    Looking at the packs it seems to me like the game si intended to have a monthly fee and microtransactions.
    Is this true? It feels like double dipping to me.

    Agree, that's the one thing I dislike with Ashes. Cash-shop. Allready.
    You want to pay subscription to avoid having any cash-shops ruining the game. Not to have them both.
    I think buying cosmetics is almost as bad as P2w, because Cosmetics is a huge part of an MMORPG, and if you can buy things for real money to look cool. Then what is the point?

    I hate that this is the new standard of games. I would normally never play a game with a cash-shop if it's an MMORPG or RPG, but Ashes can be an exception knowing that Steven is very well aware of the problem with Pw2 and all of that, and has a good vision and ideal for the game. But still..

    I'm actually quite happy with the payment system, as long as they keep to what they have stated.

    It will be the cheapest MMO I have ever played.

    Since in most games I tend to change my look about once every two years, even if I stick to that time frame, and even if I go full cash shop, I'll spend a whole lot less than I would in a game with a box cost and yearly paid expansions.
  • Odal wrote: »
    profk wrote: »
    Looking at the packs it seems to me like the game si intended to have a monthly fee and microtransactions.
    Is this true? It feels like double dipping to me.

    Agree, that's the one thing I dislike with Ashes. Cash-shop. Allready.
    You want to pay subscription to avoid having any cash-shops ruining the game. Not to have them both.
    I think buying cosmetics is almost as bad as P2w, because Cosmetics is a huge part of an MMORPG, and if you can buy things for real money to look cool. Then what is the point?

    I hate that this is the new standard of games. I would normally never play a game with a cash-shop if it's an MMORPG or RPG, but Ashes can be an exception knowing that Steven is very well aware of the problem with Pw2 and all of that, and has a good vision and ideal for the game. But still..

    You just made this account.

    Yes.. and? Was there suppose to be some kind of point made here?
    Im like the King of Sweden. Except I don't wear funny hats.

    img]
  • OdalOdal Member
    edited September 30
    Odal wrote: »
    profk wrote: »
    Looking at the packs it seems to me like the game si intended to have a monthly fee and microtransactions.
    Is this true? It feels like double dipping to me.

    Agree, that's the one thing I dislike with Ashes. Cash-shop. Allready.
    You want to pay subscription to avoid having any cash-shops ruining the game. Not to have them both.
    I think buying cosmetics is almost as bad as P2w, because Cosmetics is a huge part of an MMORPG, and if you can buy things for real money to look cool. Then what is the point?

    I hate that this is the new standard of games. I would normally never play a game with a cash-shop if it's an MMORPG or RPG, but Ashes can be an exception knowing that Steven is very well aware of the problem with Pw2 and all of that, and has a good vision and ideal for the game. But still..

    You just made this account.

    Fuck it. Ill take it back.
    Sus as it may seem that a new acc takes aim at the cash shop, I find myself agreeing about the "new stardard of gaming", which is gear looks for real money.

    Still it is what it is in 2021, and since it doesnt affect progression people should temper their opinions as to avoid spreading misinformation.

    There is no p2w. That's the main thing.

    Bro, you calling me sus and have a fucking Anime profile picture? LOL. Alright man.
    Anyway, where is the rule that I cannot state my opinion about a posted topic because my account is new?

    Well at least you agree. And yes it's a bad state of gaming.
    Im like the King of Sweden. Except I don't wear funny hats.

    img]
  • Noaani wrote: »
    Odal wrote: »
    profk wrote: »
    Looking at the packs it seems to me like the game si intended to have a monthly fee and microtransactions.
    Is this true? It feels like double dipping to me.

    Agree, that's the one thing I dislike with Ashes. Cash-shop. Allready.
    You want to pay subscription to avoid having any cash-shops ruining the game. Not to have them both.
    I think buying cosmetics is almost as bad as P2w, because Cosmetics is a huge part of an MMORPG, and if you can buy things for real money to look cool. Then what is the point?

    I hate that this is the new standard of games. I would normally never play a game with a cash-shop if it's an MMORPG or RPG, but Ashes can be an exception knowing that Steven is very well aware of the problem with Pw2 and all of that, and has a good vision and ideal for the game. But still..

    I'm actually quite happy with the payment system, as long as they keep to what they have stated.

    It will be the cheapest MMO I have ever played.

    Since in most games I tend to change my look about once every two years, even if I stick to that time frame, and even if I go full cash shop, I'll spend a whole lot less than I would in a game with a box cost and yearly paid expansions.

    The cheapest? I paid 12.99 for WoW and could change my looks in TBC. For Free. I think it's an insane out look that you should play money for a game you allready own to change something in game. These new monetization practices are ridiculous and just shows how far gaming has fallen (and gamers for that matter).

    If there is an expansion, at least the devs have to do something for the earned cash. You pay for something you recieve. Not something which is allready in game, or a full game price for an item some animator slapped together in a week like a cosmetic item.

    I think it's sad man. In some games it can be alright, in other genres.. League Of Legends comes to mind, because there the point of the game is not cosmetics. The point of the game is to be good at "RTS". To rise in ranks. Not to look cool or make your own character.

    Anyway, to each their own.
    Im like the King of Sweden. Except I don't wear funny hats.

    img]
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Odal wrote: »

    The cheapest? I paid 12.99 for WoW and could change my looks in TBC. For Free.
    No, you paid $60 for WoW, and then a subscription of $15 a month (or $13 a month if you paid for 6 months at a time). You also bought each and every expansion that WoW has released.

    That $15 a month is the same as what Intrepid are asking you to pay for Ashes. There may or may not be a multi-month package in Ashes that may or may not see you paying a total of $13 a month for the game.

    HOWEVER, little one, you were paying $15 a month in 2004, inflation alone would make that $21.72 today. Even your $13 a month would work out to be $18.83 today - which is more than Intrepid is asking for at $15 in todays money, not 2004's money.

    So, the subscription is the same in basic terms, significantly less in real terms, and Intrepid are not asking for a box cost or for you to pay for expansions.

    Take that $60 every 2 years or so you would spend on expansions (adjusted for inflation that would now be $86.98), in addition to the $6.72 per month ($161.28 over two years), and you have $248.26 (adjusted for inflation) every two years that Blizzard required you to pay, that Intrepid does not.

    That is a shitload of cosmetics, tbh. If you spend less than that on them, then Ashes will be cheaper for you, too.
  • OdalOdal Member
    edited September 30
    Noaani wrote: »
    Odal wrote: »

    The cheapest? I paid 12.99 for WoW and could change my looks in TBC. For Free.
    No, you paid $60 for WoW, and then a subscription of $15 a month (or $13 a month if you paid for 6 months at a time). You also bought each and every expansion that WoW has released.

    That $15 a month is the same as what Intrepid are asking you to pay for Ashes. There may or may not be a multi-month package in Ashes that may or may not see you paying a total of $13 a month for the game.

    HOWEVER, little one, you were paying $15 a month in 2004, inflation alone would make that $21.72 today. Even your $13 a month would work out to be $18.83 today - which is more than Intrepid is asking for at $15 in todays money, not 2004's money.

    So, the subscription is the same in basic terms, significantly less in real terms, and Intrepid are not asking for a box cost or for you to pay for expansions.

    Take that $60 every 2 years or so you would spend on expansions (adjusted for inflation that would now be $86.98), in addition to the $6.72 per month ($161.28 over two years), and you have $248.26 (adjusted for inflation) every two years that Blizzard required you to pay, that Intrepid does not.

    That is a shitload of cosmetics, tbh. If you spend less than that on them, then Ashes will be cheaper for you, too.

    Yeah, I thought that was implicintly understood that you have to pay for the actual box price. It was more like 40 dollars, not 60 when I bought it, if i can remember correctly. I preordered Vanilla WoW.
    Plus I got a big Collection figure with the pre-order as a reward.

    Nope, 12.99 here. Or 120 kronor in Swedish money. I think there might have been a slight increase tho nowadays.

    If you are speaking about inflation, you could compare it then to how much the salaries go up in comparison for it to be a legitimate comparison. I would have no problem to pay 21 dollars a month either for a really good game, without a cash-shop.

    248 seems very reasonable to me for two years. Way way better than Cash-shops. Way better.
    So I don't really see your point. It doesn't really counter the argument as to why cash-shops are bad either, it's not because of the cost... really. But because you can pay for cosmetics (or even worse P2w "convenience" or such in really scummy companies) which is a big part of an MMORPG.
    And it doesn't counter the argument that if you buy expansions, the devs actually have to make something for what you pay - you pay for a product. Not for something that allready exists or some animator's 1 week work.


    Im like the King of Sweden. Except I don't wear funny hats.

    img]
  • Odal wrote: »
    248 seems very reasonable to me for two years. Way way better than Cash-shops. Way better.

    To be honest, I'd much rather have a cosmetic-only cash shop that I don't ever need to spend in, than have to pay an extra $248 to get rid of it. As long as it stays cosmetic-only, and we don't get any more of those fricking corgi abominations, then I really don't see the problem.
    Daveywavey-member.png
  • OdalOdal Member
    edited September 30
    daveywavey wrote: »
    Odal wrote: »
    248 seems very reasonable to me for two years. Way way better than Cash-shops. Way better.

    To be honest, I'd much rather have a cosmetic-only cash shop that I don't ever need to spend in, than have to pay an extra $248 to get rid of it. As long as it stays cosmetic-only, and we don't get any more of those fricking corgi abominations, then I really don't see the problem.

    I don't agree. I think cosmetics is a huge part of an MMORPG. I can still remember when I played WoW for the first time and saw a min maxing dude who was allready lvl 60 when I was lvl 30 on a skeletal warhorse. It was so cool.
    If you could just buy it in a shop - who cares. ZzzzZzzz... ruins the game.

    And buying expansions, releasing expansions makes it so you have something to look forward to. Especially for collectors of boxes and stuff.
    Im like the King of Sweden. Except I don't wear funny hats.

    img]
  • cyanideinsanitycyanideinsanity Member, Warrior of Old
    profk wrote: »
    Reading a bit fast are you?

    "Arenanet has quite successfully demonstrated that you can just live on box price if you predict your back-end expenses well and build them into the box price up front."

    As for the rest, all of the other games gave you back your box cost in free sub months.

    Thank you for playing.

    //plonk

    Is this why gw2 went f2p, has cosmetic mtx let you buy gold via gem conversion, and sold unbreakable gathering tools that are character bound? I havent played in years so i dont know exactly how those tools are.
Sign In or Register to comment.