Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
Hello! Yes, I love cosmetics and I think they are an important part of any mmo. Hence why cash shops are successful. However, when I pay my monthly fee like everyone else, I shouldn't necessarily have what I find most enjoyable about the game be charged extra for. I stated many alternatives to that extra revenue in this thread and how it affects gamers like me! Also, how it could make the game more enjoyable in the longevity to make cosmetics earned and not just cash grabs. Here's an example I've stated before:
You are roleplaying as your character being able to fight dragons in a fantasy world. Some people play in a different way. AoC said there are many types of progression besides combat. That was a core principle. You can be a mount breeder, a tavern owner, a baker, etc... They were trying to appeal to people who enjoy social aspects of mmo's with their principles of making many paths of progression and not the typical xp to level 100 and done.
Hypothetically, I should be able to be a (for example) baker as my gameplay when I pay my monthly sub. Now, it the "baker" costume costs $20 on the cash shop, my entire gameplay has a barrier to entry that no one else had. It's not about the one costume, though, this could be hypothetically said about any cosmetic that they charge extra for.
By this logic, I prefer a box price. I'd rather pay $60 once than $20 multiple times to get the furniture for the shop, the different costumes, etc, etc, etc. If you are the 1/4 of the player base that is wanting to play this part of the game, it now has the burden of being monetized.
I understand that you want a voice in the art direction. But like I said earlier that you didn't address, there are alternatives like community voting that don't affect a portion of the player base negatively.
No, I am offering a suggestion on how it could be done differently to not negatively affect a portion of the player base and how the community can have a voice in these things! Just like many had a voice in why they are changing the art of the dwarves with feedback *right now*!
The art of the player races was not a core aspect of the games design. It can be changed without impacting the game or the company. Changes to those models really is just a preference thing with no real impact on anything.
The cash shop can not be changed without affecting the game or the company. If you get rid of it, Intrepid need to either increase the subscription - which will see many players opt out of the game - or add a box cost - which will see many players opt out of the game.
You are looking at things only from your perspective, not taking other perspectives in to account at all - and then claiming the rest of us are doing just that.
You know... they can change... anything in the game. And there probably wouldn't be a "mass exodus" since it seems many of these people are invested You are arguing from the point of view that you work for them and know the absolute facts and maybe even Steven personally. You don't really know all of their plans just from watching some livestreams with carefully selected and released information to consumers like you.
Sorry, how will selling cosmetics adversely affect a portion of the player base?
Because they don't have enough money to buy them?
In that case, how will increasing the subscription cost help them?
People are invested in Steven, and in Intrepid.
Most of us playing MMO's for decades are sick of developers and publishers that say one thing and do another. If Intrepid display any suggestion of being just one more in that line, then yes, many people will leave.
Now you're getting into a different type of 'disrespectful' territory.
They told us their plans. In detail. And told us that they will be transparent about whatever they can. Other people explain those plans to you.
You would have an argument if you were saying 'no, you misunderstood what they said'. But you're not. You're saying 'things could change' and now you're saying 'do you think they told you everything' (with the implication that somehow this would allow things to change).
If you can't at least respect Intrepid's promise and claim, why even bother engaging on the subject?
I see. You are reliant that the sub price will not change because there is a cash shop. That's not necessarily fact and many video game companies have changes their monetization after the game is released. It's okay to rework something while the game is in development if it might be a better option. People can change their minds without "trust being lost."
Please read my original post and the "baker" example in this thread.
Many games do indeed change their monetization after a game is released - because the game would fail if they didn't.
The idea is to get the monetization right at the start, so that this change isn't needed.
I would fully support you being upset with a cosmetic only cash shop if it were added to the game after launch, with no prior mention of it. I left a game I played and loved for a long time due to it adding a cash shop (with minor pay to win aspects).
However, the cash shop is here from the start, so there is no room to be upset about it. You either accept it, or you don't.
I know they have made promises, it's clear everyone knows them here. But, yes, to think they tell the player base "everything" is foolish. It's okay to rework something... like a cash shop... while the game is in development if it might be a better option. People can change their minds in a creative process without breaking promises.
Why? Why can't it be brought up like every other issue? There's no harm in sharing a counter perspective and some rp grievances with this way of monetization before the game is even released. Now is the time to change things hence why they have discussion boards!
It seems that you are advocating punishing a large portion of the player base with a higher subscription fee.
Many people, as evidenced by this thread, don't care about the cosmetic shop one way or the other.
All of these people will have to pay more money to remove it.
There are alternatives to increasing the sub fee for everyone, e.g. having a cosmetic like they already have.
You said yourself: "1/4 of the player base that is wanting to play this part of the game".
So the other 75% that do not want to play that part have to pay extra for you to do that? That's just not fair.
Because what you're doing isn't actually airing RP Grievances, it just looks a lot like it because you're separating what is actually happening from what you are concerned about happening.
You're talking about a situation in which someone puts in the effort to make a Baker costume, this costume is important to someone else (i.e. it is a part of the game that they expect or want enough to have it influence their enjoyment of the game), but it is only available via cash shop.
The difference is that you see 'I think it's unfair that someone can buy a costume that someone else can't get'. and I at least see 'there was no good economic reason to make a baker costume unless there were going to be enough people wanting to wear it and having no alternatives'.
If a visual indicator is needed or enhances the RP experience of many players, I don't expect it to be in the cash shop. I haven't seen much like it in the Shop so far. Maybe once or twice.
So to me you're just saying "I expect there to be cosmetics that are relevant to RP for a nontrivial number of people and Intrepid is going to try to force those people to buy the cosmetics".
That's the most charitable interpretation of your argument I can see from where I am.
Enlighten me.
As I said earlier, you can discuss it all you want. Just don't expect any change.
Especially don't expect any change when you have not presented a better solution.
If you had a solution that none of us could find fault with (you won't), then sure, you have a reason to want change to happen. Until you understand Intrepid's reason for the cash shop and come up with a solution that meets those reasons though, you have no reason to be upset.
Again, you either accept the cash shop as it is, for the reasons Intrepid have it, or you do not accept it and you play something else.
A free trial gets people into the game. It's worked forever. A slight raise in monthly subs is not crazy when it's been $15 for mmo's since 2004. Runescape was $5 and now is $11. I think an mmo of this quality could double in price from what it was for the best mmo in the early 2000's. Also, $60 box price is standard since the 90's. People freak out when these prices change, so they'd rather add microtransactions instead of just making to cost upfront realistic and fairly compensated.
It makes perfect sense to me, the 75% of the population that do not want to play the cosmetic game get to pay the normal price. The 25% (according to your post above) that want to play the cosmetic can pay extra to play it.
Otherwise we punish the majority with higher sub fees, just so the minority can play a game the majority don't care about at all.
If only the game was made how he wanted, it would be fine, but since it's made how other people wanted, it needs to be fixed so it's what he wanted.
I don't understand how you people aren't getting this!!!!!!
All cosmetics are relevant to RP. This game is an RPG. Why do they think it will be enough for revenue if a cash shop doesn't affect but a nontrivial number of people?
"Anything can change during development" is actually just hyperbole.
It's also "possible" that the devs will give us separate PvE servers, but...it's highly unlikely.
I clearly need to hand my degree back in. *shuffles away*
Well for one thing I am a female. Secondly, it seems like this has been debated before and yes there are multiple sides to a debate. If it wasn't a relevant topic about the game, you wouldn't be commenting.
I'll say it again, the cosmetic shop is not only for RPers.
You can give it to me, I'm equally not using any of mine.
That's an interesting assumption.
$15 a month is standard for MMO's. This is what Intrepid - a company with no track record - needs to charge in order to get people to look at the game. At least for the first year, this figure simply can not be altered.
A $60 box price is what Intrepid are trying to avoid. This is a barrier to entry for many people that could happily pay $15 a month. Even if a free trial existed, this $60 box cost would be a barrier for many people.
However, that $15 a month subscription fee doesn't cover the cost of both maintaining/running the game, as well as developing new content. So, a second revenue stream is needed. Since Intrepid have determined that adding a box cost will keep players away from the game, and that $15 is the most they want to charge for a subscription (at least to start) a cash shop is the only option left available to them.
So, what Intrepid need to do in order to not have a cash shop is come up with a revenue stream that isn't a box cost at all, and doesn't involve increasing the subscription fee, yet has the potential to make decent profit.
I guess so if you have nothing better to do with your degree than comment on video game forums that are irrelevant to you.
The free trial is at the beginning to get many people hooked so that the box cost can come after for a "full download". Then, you can charge per month after that.
Or, they could just charge more than $15, say $19.99 and people wouldn't freak out over a $4 difference like is being assumed.
Would I rather not have a box cost? Sure. Would I like it be stay at $15? That'd be nice. But I also am happy to fairly pay for a video game that is really engaging with a one time fee and no cash shops influencing gameplay. However, obviously I am a minority in this group of people on my thread. That doesn't discourage me though.