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.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Evorith

Happy to pay a sub every day of the week, No to Micro transactions unless its fluff! however I have seen the creep from Fluff to P2W in so many MMO's it just breaks the heart of the game. Recently BDO, WoW, LiF just sad. Its a failed game model Short term gains over long term income. I also don't have an issue to pay for the box and a sub.

Atama

Evorith wrote: »

Its a failed game model Short term gains over long term income.

You are factually incorrect, unfortunately. It's really the only successful game model for MMORPGs. In fact, going to microtransactions has saved games from failure. The Secret World, Star Wars: The Old Republic, Lord of the Rings Online, those are just a few off the top of my head that went from almost dying on a subscription-only basis to survive due to microtransactions.

I don't like it either, frankly, but that's reality. Maybe there is a new business model that avoids them which might work, and nobody has tried before, but there's a reason that there are no successful MMORPGs (long-lived, currently active, and with a good playerbase) that don't have MTX.

Marcet

The game should be free, no subscription, box cost or cash shop, it will survive with love, and the power of gamers.

Atama

There's nothing you can do that can't be done
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung
Nothing you can say, but you can learn how to play the game
It's easy
Nothing you can make that can't be made
No one you can save that can't be saved
Nothing you can do, but you can learn how to be you in time
It's easy
All you need is love
All you need is love
All you need is love, love
Love is all you need

(In a love-based purchasing model, would a hug be a microtransaction?)

George_Black

Why continue on this topic?

KeeperBrGO

profk wrote: »

Note: Of the two I much prefer a simple monthly fee. Microtransactions IMO have ruined the MMORPG space.

if it was my choice I wish I didn't have it, but far from being something big, I think more important than that is to be open to change if it gets bad, but at the end of the day it's a way to raise more money without spoiling the game. They will reinvest I don't know, only time will tell.
Is kind of silly.

Evorith

It killed off many games that never recovered. BDO, EQ 2, LiF and even now WoW is in decline. What happens is the get a great player base and start to look to see how they can increase income, they start making cookie cutter items, quests and zones. The quality declines but the income goes up. It becomes a Cash cow but the player base disappears. Sure it may prolong it, but its never the same.

Elufo

Hello there ... just my 2 cents regarding this subject...
Personaly, i prefer a month fee and not paying for box OR pay for box and have the months equivalent of it and then keep the monthly fee (we all know that is expensive keeping an MMO structure).
Regarding shop, being ONLY cosmetic stuff, you only buy it if you want and nothing will make you gain advantage over other players, simple as that!
That being said, i think is exxacly what Intrepid is doing with AoC ... wich makes me happy and looking forward for the game!

Sweatycup

Don't mind a monthly fee as long as we get discounts for yearly or quarterly payments. If it is necessary then it is unless you want to hand off part of the game to other people willing to essentially sponsor the game. And this can essentially ruin a game from its original image. Microtransaction will just be skins anyways. Doesnt sound like a issue personally. They could however offer a option for time played or a quest line to get additional game-time though if the amount of time played is so important to them and you don't believe in supporting a game. Servers can get expensive. And without servers you have no MMO. Or at best you have a certain amount of time before you have to create new content that is payed for like a expansion to keep it going. Essentially everything to run a mmo continuously costs money. This isnt a triple A developer with millions upon millions and willing lenders/partners to loan. This is Ashes of Creation, eh?

Atama

Evorith wrote: »

It killed off many games that never recovered. BDO, EQ 2, LiF and even now WoW is in decline. What happens is the get a great player base and start to look to see how they can increase income, they start making cookie cutter items, quests and zones. The quality declines but the income goes up. It becomes a Cash cow but the player base disappears. Sure it may prolong it, but its never the same.

Micro transactions have nothing to do with the declines of those games. A fickle and changing playerbase is the main reason, combined with occasionally taking the game design in a bad direction.

There is entropy in all things and MMORPGs are no different. It’s astounding that WoW has lasted as long as it has. But nothing lasts forever.

Karthos

Many of us are here because Ashes of Creation is promised to be free from "Pay To Win" mechanics. It's just not really accurate to accuse them of "double dipping".

Intrepid has promised us a game that won't make us pay to succeed in the game with sellable armor, weapons and augments/boosters. They have never promised that they won't charge us money for additional items we may want cosmetically.

$15 has been the standard subscription price for over 2 decades, and given inflation, and the fact new video games cost $60-70 now, $15 a month is really not that much to ask. If you can't afford $15 a month, you may have other priorities than playing MMOs in your life. That being said, "double dipping" would be if they charged us a sub model, and then charged us a "premium VIP" to access the rest of the game they pay gated.

What Intrepid is doing is selling us an ice cream cone, and then charging us extra for sprinkles. Really, very common to charge extra for additional items to enhance your base product. If you don't want to buy, then don't. It's literally that simple. But don't try to make a big deal out of nothing because you have a fatal case of the FOMO.

mfckingjoker

Based on most of the mmos and how they charge people then a monthly subscription with no box cost + cosmetics with no p2w is more than great actually.

Jonta

George Black wrote: »

George Black 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..

You just made this account.

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

At the moment....

Taleof2Cities

JONTA wrote: »

At the moment....

Unless Steven and the devs have some sort of huge fumble in the game design (which doesn't appear to be forthcoming), the game won't stray from it's original non-pay-to-win philosophy, @JONTA.

In other words, there's no evidence to support your statement.

Other MMOs have been successful with cosmetic and convenience items only in the cash shop (ESO for example).

Jonta

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

JONTA wrote: »

At the moment....

Unless Steven and the devs have some sort of huge fumble in the game design (which doesn't appear to be forthcoming), the game won't stray from it's original non-pay-to-win philosophy, @JONTA.

In other words, there's no evidence to support your statement.

Other MMOs have been successful with cosmetic and convenience items only in the cash shop (ESO for example).

True , . But things have a strange habit of turning out the complete opposite of what was meant to be over time. Don't believe all you read and are told and nothing will surprise you when it changes..

Atama

JONTA wrote: »

True , . But things have a strange habit of turning out the complete opposite of what was meant to be over time. Don't believe all you read and are told and nothing will surprise you when it changes..

Do you have an example of an MMORPG that pledged no P2W and then changed completely later? If you are trying to establish that there is a precedent and you're not just making things up to be a gadfly.

Crimmy117

I personally don't mind a subscription fee with a cosmetic store, especially if the sub comes with a monthly deposit of currency to save up for items that aren't essential to gameplay. It's something I did for a long time with Elder Scrolls Online. The benefits of having a sub was worth it for me and after a few months I usually had enough crowns to purchase fun items for my characters, I never paid anything extra.

JustVine

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

JONTA wrote: »

At the moment....

Unless Steven and the devs have some sort of huge fumble in the game design (which doesn't appear to be forthcoming), the game won't stray from it's original non-pay-to-win philosophy, @JONTA.

In other words, there's no evidence to support your statement.

Other MMOs have been successful with cosmetic and convenience items only in the cash shop (ESO for example).

Hmm. Well given the conversation in another thread I see a potential fumble (one easily fixed.)

Some people in another thread (without being corrected) have said IS plans to have cosmetics transmog over your equipped gear regardless of them matching your equipped gear. Example: A greatsword transmog on a staff, a robe on plate armor etc. This is obviously poor game design in a PvP game. Especially when you cannot turn off said skins which is another design decision Intrepid has stated in the past.

If this is true, it's not a small thing to worry about cash shop giving you more information control (which is power in pvp.) The benefit this gives is even stronger in a high participation count activity like seige or caravan where you have to have split second decisions and less ability to track any given player. You simply cant have optimal decisions against such a player in those situations, but optimal decisions are required in those situations....

Even if you can unlock these transmogs in game, the fact that you presumably can buy these costumes in the cash shop is definitionally paying money to get advantage earlier than the competition and less time spent getting those items instead of earning coin, or node xp, or actual better gear pieces. This wouldn't matter in a pve game, but Ashes is heavily PvP.

It's a major fumble if they stick with these design decision.

Jonta

Atama wrote: »

JONTA wrote: »

True , . But things have a strange habit of turning out the complete opposite of what was meant to be over time. Don't believe all you read and are told and nothing will surprise you when it changes..

Do you have an example of an MMORPG that pledged no P2W and then changed completely later? If you are trying to establish that there is a precedent and you're not just making things up to be a gadfly.

I don't have an example(suppose if i could be bothered to look hard enough I could find one )
and this isn't about other mmorpgs it's about this game, all I am saying is dont taken what is said as set in stone . When the £$ start to fall off things change to bring in those £$.

Your all so touchy on this forum anything negative or against the grain and you get called well basically a troll..

Atama

JONTA wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

JONTA wrote: »

True , . But things have a strange habit of turning out the complete opposite of what was meant to be over time. Don't believe all you read and are told and nothing will surprise you when it changes..

Do you have an example of an MMORPG that pledged no P2W and then changed completely later? If you are trying to establish that there is a precedent and you're not just making things up to be a gadfly.

I don't have an example(suppose if i could be bothered to look hard enough I could find one )
and this isn't about other mmorpgs it's about this game, all I am saying is dont taken what is said as set in stone . When the £$ start to fall off things change to bring in those £$.

Your all so touchy on this forum anything negative or against the grain and you get called well basically a troll..

No, but it's nice if you make claims that you back them up, otherwise nobody is going to give your comments any credence. When you say "don't believe all you read" don't worry, I'm certainly not believing any of the theories you're trying to put forth here.

If you think that people are called "trolls" for saying anything negative, you certainly don't know the forum very well. One of the biggest critics of this company is me. Many of the people here who've been around for years have lived through the bad decisions and broken promises the developers have made. To me the worst was when they promised a Kickstarter-exclusive lifetime subscription, then offered it again to people after Kickstarter was over. The My.com partnership was also a debacle that brought a lot of criticism, though they at least had a good explanation for why they felt it was necessary, and they eventually ended that deal so folks in EU don't have to deal with that notorious company. I still maintain that it is embarrassingly dumb to call one of the archetypes a "tank" given that there is no in-game reference for such a term; Steven claims he called it that because "people are going to call it a tank anyway" which is a pretty thin argument. (Why do we have an archetype called "cleric" and not just "healer"? Why is there a "mage" archetype, not "magic damage-dealer"?)

For that matter, one of the worst decisions they made, and it continues to cause problems, is to misleadingly change common gaming terms and call their classes "archetypes", and then the class specializations "classes" when they aren't really classes. It confuses so many people and that confusion is intentional; they are intentionally misleading people. They are doing it so that they can market the game as "OMG we have 64 classes LOL!!!!111" which is a lie. Just because you call something a class, that doesn't make it a class. Yet another poor decision.

I could go on and on about criticism of this game. The thing is, criticism that has reason behind it is usually accepted. Criticism based on things you totally make up, based on misunderstandings, based on falsehoods, that criticism is going to lead to derision. When people continue to maintain that criticism despite being shown objectively that they are incorrect, that is by its nature trolling.

I'm not saying you, specifically, are a troll. But we get a number of them on the boards (as you will anywhere online), and that is one of the ways in which you can identify them.

Child Item