tautau wrote: » I believe there will also be in-game 'earned only' cosmetic type items and gear.
Iridianny wrote: » When I have played an mmo and I have seen someone on a purchased mount I personally think, "oh that person paid extra for that." I'd much rather think, "oh that person found a rare creature or worked really hard on their animal husbandry skill and perhaps has them for sale! I should interact with them." I know there are a large amount of people who aren't concerned with cosmetics at all, and all they care for is gameplay. I have read many opinions where they are more concerned with pay to win because being behind unfairly bothers them. Which is a fair issue to have. Pay to win has the same negative feeling that pay for cosmetics does to a player like me. Also, I don't think that is the point of this mmo is to be the best at combat skill, I am fairly sure there are many ways to progress, like just owning a tavern. In that case, there are many types of players who will enjoy this game! You can see what type of player you are using the Bartle test here: https://matthewbarr.co.uk/bartle/ALL types of players should be accounted for in monetization and how it affects their experience. If there must be two paths of revenue, box price and monthly fee sounds great to me! Doesn't affect any type of players.
Asgerr wrote: » Some people don't want to pay the box cost and some others prefer not having a subscription. Some prefer light monetization from cosmetics, other don't want them at all. In the end, your singular distate for them is not going to alter the entirety of their revenue stream and business model.
Boanergese wrote: » We are playing Ashes of Creation, not Fashion Fashion Revolution.
Iridianny wrote: » Asgerr wrote: » Some people don't want to pay the box cost and some others prefer not having a subscription. Some prefer light monetization from cosmetics, other don't want them at all. In the end, your singular distate for them is not going to alter the entirety of their revenue stream and business model. It is early days of this game, if they were to change things, now would be the time. They seem receptive to feedback actually! I am offering a counter perspective on behalf of the people who prefer no cosmetic monetization as it affects their experience with the game. Like I said, pay to win affects a type of player and pay for cosmetics affects another. Both are equally important and if one isn't being considered neither should the other. Box price affects no type of player.
Boanergese wrote: » You are like the 100th person to start a post like this. Check the forums.
Boanergese wrote: » Steven has said a billion times there is no pay to win.
Iridianny wrote: » Boanergese wrote: » Steven has said a billion times there is no pay to win. Sure, but maybe they should replace pay for cosmetics for pay to win is what I am saying. It would make them a lot more money if having multiple revenue streams is important and it doesn't ostracize players that enjoy cosmetics and social gameplay.
Taleof2Cities wrote: » pay for cosmetics is the lesser evil by a country mile. It's not even close.
Iridianny wrote: » Taleof2Cities wrote: » pay for cosmetics is the lesser evil by a country mile. It's not even close. Why? Why weigh it like that rather than doing a different type of monetization that isn't evil and doesn't affect an entire player type?
Taleof2Cities wrote: » If pay for cosmetics were removed, how do you propose the game pay for itself, @Iridianny? I hope your answer isn't just the monthly sub. That won't be enough to sustain the servers much less new content.