It's just hit me, a huge flaw in your judgement. I am shocked that this thread has so much attention it's drawing from actual constructive conversation because all you seem to do is rebuke everything people say, facts or not.
Now, you have very frequently used the rhetoric that a cash shop is a BARRIER to entry, something stopping you from accessing something YOU want, okay. if that's all you said then that would be that, though the conversation should have stopped there with you accepting it's your opinion/preference.
But, you have also constantly reiterated that you would be happy with either a box price, and/or a higher subscription fee. Now if we assume the subscription costs £10 per month with our current model and a store skin costs £15~. What would you propose to be the higher subscription model *in exchange* for the cash shop? Are we saying an additional £5? i.e. 33% increase? This isn't an unreasonable price increase going by your suggestions, after all, going by what you said the player base WOULD pay it, right?
Because for this nominal increase, were we to stick to the current model and compare to a flat increased sub, every 3 months, you will have spent an additional cosmetic's worth to our current model. i.e. every 3 months, you could have effectively bought a shop cosmetic at no additional expense. Even if I knock it up £5, that's every 4 months. Except your desire to not have a shop has pushed those costs onto the entire player base (given that the game was designed with a cash shop in mind, the lost income has to be offset somewhere).
If we go to realistic shop releases, your "Baker" costume is going to be such a niche item that there will be no chance that there are more iterations of these than you would be able to accommodate for i.e. I see a baker model being released at BEST, you might get one in a particular year, but perhaps none next year.
There are a bunch of holes in this sinking ship and water's on deck. I don't discredit all the points you are making, but had you not proposed that the entire player base just pay more money to accommodate this, well couldn't that be considered for many... a Barrier to Entry?
After reading first page of comments this looks more like a tantrum.
"BooHoo! I missed some collectibles." Because the OP definitely doesnt seem short of cash considering he is suggesting box price + higher subscription fees which he seems to think people would be ok with. You dont speak for me! I am not Ok with this. I think leveraging cosmetics to lower subscription fees for normal players is the best.
At the end of the day, this is a game but a business too. All the relevant points have been mentioned regarding why cosmetic shop is there. If OP doesnt like it then he can look for some other game.
Most importantly, the shop has already been there for years now so its impact cannot be undone which makes this entire thread pointless.
"Suffer in silence"
6
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
edited February 2022
So... PvP-centric rather than PvX would be a barrier of entry for me.
I've asked Steven if Ashes is going to be as PvP-centric as EvE - because if that's the goal, I'm out.
Which is OK. I don't have to play every MMORPG.
Seems like plenty of Ashes fans have P2W as a barrier of entry.
If cash shops were a barrier of entry for me, I'd know upfront that Ashes is not my kinda game and plan to play something else.
I understand you all just want to tell me how wrong and awful I am for having a differing opinion about cash shops... that is a fairly common stance on other mmo's... but perhaps instead of fighting my feelings, just try to understand my perspective and move on?
A lot of people assume I am upset because I missed out on cash shop items, but I don't ever plan on buying anything or care to support that revenue stream. I think it takes advantage of people who find cosmetics to be an important part of their experience and immersion as it is something that is important to real life and self expression, too. Many of you haven't engaged in rp in a traditional sense of the word (even though you have, that's what playing an rpg is doing) so I don't expect you to understand, just to try.
Instead of trying to dispute why I think it takes advantage of them, let's focus on other ideas about cash shops more in general using ashes as the example mmo.
Do you really think it's a feasible form of revenue after the game is launched?
Consider how many of you said that "cosmetics don't matter." Once you are paying your $15 a month and the developers aren't making you feel special for being part of the alpha and beta funding with titles...
what is there to buy at that point for those who don't care about cosmetics?
If no one finds cosmetics necessary because "they add no advantage to gameplay," are you just reliant on "whales" to continue to invest in the game so you don't have to pay a slightly higher sub? For how long could that be sustained?
If the cash shop fails and the "revenue is not high enough", would you "lose your trust in Steven" for raising the sub price? Why would it be different now to change it versus after the game is launched? Wouldn't it be worse?
If the cash shop fails with just carrying cosmetics and the "revenue is not high enough" what is your list of things they cannot add that are pay to win? Where does that list begin and end?
Is a cosmetic that provides abilities that in game gear doesn't have available pay to win? What kind of abilities are acceptable and which aren't? Which skills are more important in this determination and why?
What if adding abilities is the only way to make the "insignificant cosmetics" significant enough to sustain that revenue stream? Is that okay?
If everything is going to be equal between cash shop and in-game to prevent it from having any advantage and being pay to win, does special and better appearances in cash shop then definitely not become the "winning" you were afraid of? How do you suggest it is kept equal so there "is no advantage"?
If Steven sells with a cash shop implemented and part of the game culture, do you see it more likely to be added to with pay to win features than if there is no cash shop in the culture as set by Steven and the foundational members?
If you are sure they wont expand cash shop into pay to win territory, then why do you think they chose it as a consistent form of revenue given what is asked above?
Now, I know these all are questioning the "trust of Steven," but that's okay... asking questions and having differing opinions is okay... you don't know him personally and you can even question the people you know personally from time to time and don't have to blindly trust anything.
@Iridianny I would like you to address my latest reply. If you choose to ignore it without acknowledging and justifying anything then I can only assume you see the logic in my assessment.
Why do you consider a lower subscription fee + shop a barrier to entry. While also trying to justify that higher subscription fee + no shop is NOT a barrier to entry?
I gave examples of costs and even with loose examples, you can see that as someone who is an infrequent or non-user of the shop, you are more likely to actually save money in the shop. And overtime, it's very likely that using your model of a higher subscription model, your actual net spend would be higher than without a cash shop for the average player.
And this doesn't take into account the business reasons behind not having a higher subscription fee which would act as a deterrent for players put off by the costs.
I understand you all just want to tell me how wrong and awful I am for having a differing opinion about cash shops…
1. You’re not a victim, so stop acting like one
2. You started these threads by asserting IS is wrong and you’re right because stuff, then get defensive when your assertions are pushed back upon
3. You’re the consumer, your power is in your pocket, use it accordingly in the way you want.
Bottom line: you aren’t owed anything, even explanations. The cash shop is what it is, the price is on the tag, buy it or don’t buy it.
@Iridianny I would like you to address my latest reply. If you choose to ignore it without acknowledging and justifying anything then I can only assume you see the logic in my assessment.
*sigh* I was trying to change the topic of discussion since you were just reiterating points that have already been made. Also, I didn't say "CUT." Why misquote?
Now if we assume the subscription costs £10 per month with our current model and a store skin costs £15~. What would you propose to be the higher subscription model *in exchange* for the cash shop?
This assumes that everyone is going to buy cosmetics which is a HUGE assumption. I believe that from using everyone's logic so far that cosmetics are insignificant to gameplay, only a few would. So, you wouldn't have to increase the sub cost very much to make up for the loss.
If we go to realistic shop releases, your "Baker" costume is going to be such a niche item that there will be no chance that there are more iterations of these than you would be able to accommodate for i.e. I see a baker model being released at BEST, you might get one in a particular year, but perhaps none next year.
This was one example if you read what I said, all cosmetics can be applied to this example as all cosmetics apply to rp.
a Barrier to Entry?
Why do you consider a lower subscription fee + shop a barrier to entry. While also trying to justify that higher subscription fee + no shop is NOT a barrier to entry?
I am not against barriers to entry necessarily. Hence why I am okay with box prices. I don't like when one group is given the burden of the barrier over the collective whole given a small increase in the collective barrier of subscription.
I understand you all just want to tell me how wrong and awful I am for having a differing opinion about cash shops…
1. You’re not a victim, so stop acting like one
2. You started these threads by asserting IS is wrong and you’re right because stuff, then get defensive when your assertions are pushed back upon
That's nice. You ignored any form of discussions on the points I made about cash shops to reinforce how everyone is more interested in "telling me how wrong I am." This is another list of things you've considered I've done wrong?
As a consumer, on an open forum for feedback and suggestions on a product, I am not owed any explanations but I am allowed to post my opinion. You can not like it, I don't mind.
I don't like when one group is given the burden of the barrier over the collective whole given a small increase in the collective barrier of subscription.
We have been through this several times already.
You are saying right here that you want the majority of the player base to pay extra for something that will not benefit them at all, somehow that makes the game more fair to you?
The one group that is "suffering" is the group that wants to participate in that feature. And they have a total choice to participate in it or not. They can pay for it if they want to use it or not pay for it if they do not want to use it.
You want to get rid of that power of choice, and then force ALL users to pay for it. Kind of unfair don't you think?
I think it takes advantage of people who find cosmetics to be an important part of their experience and immersion as it is something that is important to real life and self expression, too.
As I have said before, you are looking at the cosmetic cash shop items wrong.
People that fit in to your description above are not the target for those cosmetics. They are targeted with the in game cosmetics.
In a game where you can either customize your look to a ridiculously high degree, or you can slap on a one piece suit, the people that care about how they look and consider it to be an important part of their experience and immersion are going to take the customized look every time.
The cash shop cosmetics, the one piece costumes that have minimal customization, they are for people that do not consider looks to be an important part of the game, but don't want to look like shit.
There are many things you have not addressed in this thread to make it seem like this is anything more than an uninformed whine. Chief among them is why you think the cosmetic items on the cash shop are for the group of people you claim they are for and why the in game cosmetics (the ones that OBVIOUSLY fit that profile of gamer better) are not sufficient.
The only real assumption people can make based on your lack of addressing this point is that you want to get all looks in the game, hence the assumptions by some that you are upset that you missed out on some.
This assumes that everyone is going to buy cosmetics which is a HUGE assumption. I believe that from using everyone's logic so far that cosmetics are insignificant to gameplay, only a few would. So, you wouldn't have to increase the sub cost very much to make up for the loss.
I am not interested in cosmetics other than what are available in game. Why should I pay more money so that some group about whom I dont care about can feel good?
Since you use real world socializing as example let me put it this way - In real world people with fancy cloths and stuff pay for it themselves. Everyone doesnt chip in so that they have to pay less.
I didn’t read most of the comments, but I want to give my opinion.
The cosmetic shop is part of the game and everyone should accept that. Having said that, I do think there are things that can be done better.
For me the biggest problem with the cosmetic shop is the amount of cosmetics that have already being sold and the ones to come until the game releases. By the time the game releases there will be a LOT of cosmetics (honestly I just care about mounts).
So imo what Intrepid can do is release cosmetics every 3-4 months from now on, or make 5-7 packs of cosmetics and only sell those until the game releases.
And once the game releases they can update the cosmetic shop every once in a while.
0
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
I didn’t read most of the comments, but I want to give my opinion.
The cosmetic shop is part of the game and everyone should accept that. Having said that, I do think there are things that can be done better.
For me the biggest problem with the cosmetic shop is the amount of cosmetics that have already being sold and the ones to come until the game releases. By the time the game releases there will be a LOT of cosmetics (honestly I just care about mounts).
So imo what Intrepid can do is release cosmetics every 3-4 months from now on, or make 5-7 packs of cosmetics and only sell those until the game releases.
And once the game releases they can update the cosmetic shop every once in a while.
I expect things will slow by release.
Every cosmetic they create in the store can be reused in some way for NPCs. The more they make now, the more assets they’ll have for the game. The cosmetic shop, in that sense, is part of development.
After release there might be less of a need so maybe a new set each season (4 times a year). This is just my opinion of what makes sense, I don’t know that the plans are for the store after release. (I expect more items released at once, but done less often.)
Hey look that player has an amazing paid cosmetic, be careful, he must be very strong, that cosmetic must affect his gameplay, most likely it will give him 2 hands and 4 extra eyes.
That's how ridiculous that logic sounds.
Literally the Intrepid team is thinking about doing the right thing for the health of AoC, both in economy, development and gameplay, but of course better to say professional developers with years of experience are wrong.
Hey, look, there goes an MMO player who is not part of the Intrepid team, who doesn't know the team's ideas, doesn't know the problems they have to deal with, doesn't know the solutions they offer, doesn't know how the development of AoC is going but your negative opinion about cosmetics store + monthly sub must be correct, why should we believe professional developers with years of experience who are involved in the development of AoC?
The joke tells itself
3
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
Hey, look, there goes an MMO player who is not part of the Intrepid team, who doesn't know the team's ideas, doesn't know the problems they have to deal with, doesn't know the solutions they offer, doesn't know how the development of AoC is going but your negative opinion about cosmetics store + monthly sub must be correct, why should we believe professional developers with years of experience who are involved in the development of AoC?
let’s focus on other ideas about cash shops more in general using ashes as the example mmo.
Do you really think it's a feasible form of revenue after the game is launched?
Consider how many of you said that "cosmetics don't matter." Once you are paying your $15 a month and the developers aren't making you feel special for being part of the alpha and beta funding with titles...
what is there to buy at that point for those who don't care about cosmetics?
If no one finds cosmetics necessary because "they add no advantage to gameplay," are you just reliant on "whales" to continue to invest in the game so you don't have to pay a slightly higher sub? For how long could that be sustained?
If the cash shop fails and the "revenue is not high enough", would you "lose your trust in Steven" for raising the sub price? Why would it be different now to change it versus after the game is launched? Wouldn't it be worse?
If the cash shop fails with just carrying cosmetics and the "revenue is not high enough" what is your list of things they cannot add that are pay to win? Where does that list begin and end?
Is a cosmetic that provides abilities that in game gear doesn't have available pay to win? What kind of abilities are acceptable and which aren't? Which skills are more important in this determination and why?
What if adding abilities is the only way to make the "insignificant cosmetics" significant enough to sustain that revenue stream? Is that okay?
If everything is going to be equal between cash shop and in-game to prevent it from having any advantage and being pay to win, does special and better appearances in cash shop then definitely not become the "winning" you were afraid of? How do you suggest it is kept equal so there "is no advantage"?
If Steven sells with a cash shop implemented and part of the game culture, do you see it more likely to be added to with pay to win features than if there is no cash shop in the culture as set by Steven and the foundational members?
If you are sure they wont expand cash shop into pay to win territory, then why do you think they chose it as a consistent form of revenue given what is asked above?
Now, I know these all are questioning the "trust of Steven," but that's okay... asking questions and having differing opinions is okay... you don't know him personally and you can even question the people you know personally from time to time and don't have to blindly trust anything.
I’d love to actually hear some *conversation* about these points if anyone is able instead of just hurling insults.
0
AzheraeMember, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
let’s focus on other ideas about cash shops more in general using ashes as the example mmo.
Do you really think it's a feasible form of revenue after the game is launched?
Consider how many of you said that "cosmetics don't matter." Once you are paying your $15 a month and the developers aren't making you feel special for being part of the alpha and beta funding with titles...
what is there to buy at that point for those who don't care about cosmetics?
If no one finds cosmetics necessary because "they add no advantage to gameplay," are you just reliant on "whales" to continue to invest in the game so you don't have to pay a slightly higher sub? For how long could that be sustained?
If the cash shop fails and the "revenue is not high enough", would you "lose your trust in Steven" for raising the sub price? Why would it be different now to change it versus after the game is launched? Wouldn't it be worse?
If the cash shop fails with just carrying cosmetics and the "revenue is not high enough" what is your list of things they cannot add that are pay to win? Where does that list begin and end?
Is a cosmetic that provides abilities that in game gear doesn't have available pay to win? What kind of abilities are acceptable and which aren't? Which skills are more important in this determination and why?
What if adding abilities is the only way to make the "insignificant cosmetics" significant enough to sustain that revenue stream? Is that okay?
If everything is going to be equal between cash shop and in-game to prevent it from having any advantage and being pay to win, does special and better appearances in cash shop then definitely not become the "winning" you were afraid of? How do you suggest it is kept equal so there "is no advantage"?
If Steven sells with a cash shop implemented and part of the game culture, do you see it more likely to be added to with pay to win features than if there is no cash shop in the culture as set by Steven and the foundational members?
If you are sure they wont expand cash shop into pay to win territory, then why do you think they chose it as a consistent form of revenue given what is asked above?
Now, I know these all are questioning the "trust of Steven," but that's okay... asking questions and having differing opinions is okay... you don't know him personally and you can even question the people you know personally from time to time and don't have to blindly trust anything.
I’d love to actually hear some *conversation* about these points if anyone is able instead of just hurling insults.
Oh I will definitely take this one. I believe I can do it without insulting, but I can't promise to do it without revoking hypotheticals.
Let's assume that the purpose of cosmetics is to gain an additional 25% of revenue on average from players.
This would mean that every four months of paying $15, I would also buy one costume also costing $15. I know people like this.
If the cash shop failed with just cosmetic character gear I personally would expect it to start selling more cosmetic Freehold skins and similar things. At that point I might agree with your concerns a little, but not much.
The list of things that they cannot add is 'literally any ability at all'. We have discussions all the time about how even 'being able to mislead people about what type of gear you are wearing' is Pay-To-Win.
We continue to trust that there is no better appearance in the cash shop. Here's a good way to think of it.
The game has a setting, and that setting has some historical stuff, some unconfirmed weird legend stuff, and then some natural stuff. Some of the natural stuff looks really cool.
It does not make sense for the game to offer cosmetics for weird legends or historical stuff that would no longer exist as 'main appearances' for standard RP. But they can freely add anachronistic or other 'weird' cosmetics as purchaseable things. You can almost think of them as illusions.
When placed in the setting of Verra, if you chose to RP things that were restricted to the setting, then they would be illusions. Then they don't have to be rare.
The cosmetic item you get from befriending the great Elder Dragon and it allowing you to wear a cloak made of its molted scales, however, is an Achievement, directly from the game, and you can RP about a thing that happened within the game's setting.
The two cosmetics are potentially different in this way. Some of them are not like that (early ones, I find) and I can see an argument against their existence. As for why they chose it, it's because it works. People like costumes. People who have extra money and would like to support the artists and games they like, buy those costumes and skins. We know this, it has been working in many games for many years now. Because sometimes people like their illusions, and they will pay for them.
Costumes are a consistent form of revenue for many games, and this is easy to achieve because the 'default' appearance of a character or default expectation of a setting, does not suit everyone, and so, those people are charged a premium for things that do not fit the setting as much.
let’s focus on other ideas about cash shops more in general using ashes as the example mmo.
Do you really think it's a feasible form of revenue after the game is launched?
Consider how many of you said that "cosmetics don't matter." Once you are paying your $15 a month and the developers aren't making you feel special for being part of the alpha and beta funding with titles...
what is there to buy at that point for those who don't care about cosmetics?
If no one finds cosmetics necessary because "they add no advantage to gameplay," are you just reliant on "whales" to continue to invest in the game so you don't have to pay a slightly higher sub? For how long could that be sustained?
If the cash shop fails and the "revenue is not high enough", would you "lose your trust in Steven" for raising the sub price? Why would it be different now to change it versus after the game is launched? Wouldn't it be worse?
If the cash shop fails with just carrying cosmetics and the "revenue is not high enough" what is your list of things they cannot add that are pay to win? Where does that list begin and end?
Is a cosmetic that provides abilities that in game gear doesn't have available pay to win? What kind of abilities are acceptable and which aren't? Which skills are more important in this determination and why?
What if adding abilities is the only way to make the "insignificant cosmetics" significant enough to sustain that revenue stream? Is that okay?
If everything is going to be equal between cash shop and in-game to prevent it from having any advantage and being pay to win, does special and better appearances in cash shop then definitely not become the "winning" you were afraid of? How do you suggest it is kept equal so there "is no advantage"?
If Steven sells with a cash shop implemented and part of the game culture, do you see it more likely to be added to with pay to win features than if there is no cash shop in the culture as set by Steven and the foundational members?
If you are sure they wont expand cash shop into pay to win territory, then why do you think they chose it as a consistent form of revenue given what is asked above?
Now, I know these all are questioning the "trust of Steven," but that's okay... asking questions and having differing opinions is okay... you don't know him personally and you can even question the people you know personally from time to time and don't have to blindly trust anything.
I’d love to actually hear some *conversation* about these points if anyone is able instead of just hurling insults.
Ye, I told you on page one. Money talks. Video games arent as cheap to make and maintain as 15 years ago. And who would say no to $$$? Cosmetics are a big part of the gaming industry due to how vain ppl are. Its free money.
Why have you kept going on with this topic? There will never be another mmorpg that doesnt sell cosmetics. Never.
You can probably get yourself a more productive & proper conversation about the pros & cons of cosmetics shop elsewhere on a more general mmorpg forum like r/mmorpg. But likely not here.
Coz it's a really, really, really old & repetitive topic here already. Most valid arguments for both sides have been reiterated numerous times in the past in the various similar threads already, and we also all knew how this thread will end already - in parallel lines, just like all the others. Neither side was ever able to convince the other. Plus, Ashes' already long beyond the point where this can be changed anyway.
Most ppl here are just tired of these threads, and likely nobody will take this topic seriously anymore, apart from the bored folks and newer members.
You could find many ppl here eager to have a conversation about details & implementations of the already announced features --- combat mechanics, class balances, content difficulty, node systems, caravan systems, artisan systems etc. But it's quite safe to assume cosmetics shop is not a topic ppl here are interested in.
To put it in a more general way, Ashes' already at a point that ppl are only eager to discuss & have conversations about its details, but not the fundamental designs that have already long been set in stone. Cash shop happens to be one of those fundamentals since it's tied to the business model, which is in turn tied to a shit ton of design decisions.
You can insist on talking about this for as long as you want, but bitter responses are likely all you'll get here.
But I am not sure who is to blame here. You or all those acting like they are on the highschool debate team finals, and their endless paragraphs, all saying the same for pages with no end.
You can probably get yourself a more productive & proper conversation about the pros & cons of cosmetics shop elsewhere on a more general mmorpg forum like r/mmorpg. But likely not here.
Coz it's a really, really, really old & repetitive topic here already. Most valid arguments for both sides have been reiterated numerous times in the past in the various similar threads already, and we also all knew how this thread will end already - in parallel lines, just like all the others. Neither side was ever able to convince the other. Plus, Ashes' already long beyond the point where this can be changed anyway.
Most ppl here are just tired of these threads, and likely nobody will take this topic seriously anymore, apart from the bored folks and newer members.
You could find many ppl here eager to have a conversation about details & implementations of the already announced features --- combat mechanics, class balances, content difficulty, node systems, caravan systems, artisan systems etc. But it's quite safe to assume cosmetics shop is not a topic ppl here are interested in.
To put it in a more general way, Ashes' already at a point that ppl are only eager to discuss & have conversations about its details, but not the fundamental designs that have already long been set in stone. Cash shop happens to be one of those fundamentals since it's tied to the business model, which is in turn tied to a shit ton of design decisions.
You can insist on talking about this for as long as you want, but bitter responses are likely all you'll get here.
Do you really think it's a feasible form of revenue after the game is launched?
Yes.
I believe that makes the rest of your points redundant.
There is a lot of data out there to those in the industry of how much people spend on various things. This is data Intrepid will have, and we will not (I have similar data for the industries I am involved in now).
The price point that each cosmetic is set at is not some random figure, the frequency at which they are added will not be random, and the variation of designs will not be some haphazard happenstance.
Intrepid know what they are doing here, because they have done the research.
There is no reason at all to assume the cosmetic only cash shop + subscription fee won't be enough to keep the game going.
I don't mind it. As long as they don't add loot boxes i'm happy. Loot boxes in general should be illegal.
But what about lute boxes?
Without them, the strings will get wet if it rains, and it’ll never sound the same again.
How would you feel about having cosmetic skins for your lute box? They could be different depending on your race, and have different themes each month.
And maybe even for the instrument itself? I'm sure there are plenty to choose from.
Maybe this one for the Vaelune?
And this one for the Kaelar?
The stripey one feels sorta Nikua, to me.
And the speckly spangly one feels quite Empyrean.
And this one's just pure Py'Rai.
Are there any other lute designs you guys would like to see in the Cosmetic Store?
I don't mind it. As long as they don't add loot boxes i'm happy. Loot boxes in general should be illegal.
But what about lute boxes?
Without them, the strings will get wet if it rains, and it’ll never sound the same again.
Are there any other lute designs you guys would like to see in the Cosmetic Store?
That last one looks great, but not 'cosmetic store' great. The ones you posted look rock solid for craftable ones. I like them a lot.
I generally feel like there is a minimum complexity for store cosmetics. The above for example isn't that much more complex than some of them, but getting the depth right on the various pieces would take a little extra careful skill and fills a little more specific a niche.
Comments
Now, you have very frequently used the rhetoric that a cash shop is a BARRIER to entry, something stopping you from accessing something YOU want, okay. if that's all you said then that would be that, though the conversation should have stopped there with you accepting it's your opinion/preference.
But, you have also constantly reiterated that you would be happy with either a box price, and/or a higher subscription fee. Now if we assume the subscription costs £10 per month with our current model and a store skin costs £15~. What would you propose to be the higher subscription model *in exchange* for the cash shop? Are we saying an additional £5? i.e. 33% increase? This isn't an unreasonable price increase going by your suggestions, after all, going by what you said the player base WOULD pay it, right?
Because for this nominal increase, were we to stick to the current model and compare to a flat increased sub, every 3 months, you will have spent an additional cosmetic's worth to our current model. i.e. every 3 months, you could have effectively bought a shop cosmetic at no additional expense. Even if I knock it up £5, that's every 4 months. Except your desire to not have a shop has pushed those costs onto the entire player base (given that the game was designed with a cash shop in mind, the lost income has to be offset somewhere).
If we go to realistic shop releases, your "Baker" costume is going to be such a niche item that there will be no chance that there are more iterations of these than you would be able to accommodate for i.e. I see a baker model being released at BEST, you might get one in a particular year, but perhaps none next year.
There are a bunch of holes in this sinking ship and water's on deck. I don't discredit all the points you are making, but had you not proposed that the entire player base just pay more money to accommodate this, well couldn't that be considered for many... a Barrier to Entry?
"BooHoo! I missed some collectibles." Because the OP definitely doesnt seem short of cash considering he is suggesting box price + higher subscription fees which he seems to think people would be ok with. You dont speak for me! I am not Ok with this. I think leveraging cosmetics to lower subscription fees for normal players is the best.
At the end of the day, this is a game but a business too. All the relevant points have been mentioned regarding why cosmetic shop is there. If OP doesnt like it then he can look for some other game.
Most importantly, the shop has already been there for years now so its impact cannot be undone which makes this entire thread pointless.
I've asked Steven if Ashes is going to be as PvP-centric as EvE - because if that's the goal, I'm out.
Which is OK. I don't have to play every MMORPG.
Seems like plenty of Ashes fans have P2W as a barrier of entry.
If cash shops were a barrier of entry for me, I'd know upfront that Ashes is not my kinda game and plan to play something else.
A lot of people assume I am upset because I missed out on cash shop items, but I don't ever plan on buying anything or care to support that revenue stream. I think it takes advantage of people who find cosmetics to be an important part of their experience and immersion as it is something that is important to real life and self expression, too. Many of you haven't engaged in rp in a traditional sense of the word (even though you have, that's what playing an rpg is doing) so I don't expect you to understand, just to try.
Instead of trying to dispute why I think it takes advantage of them, let's focus on other ideas about cash shops more in general using ashes as the example mmo.
Do you really think it's a feasible form of revenue after the game is launched?
Consider how many of you said that "cosmetics don't matter." Once you are paying your $15 a month and the developers aren't making you feel special for being part of the alpha and beta funding with titles...
what is there to buy at that point for those who don't care about cosmetics?
If no one finds cosmetics necessary because "they add no advantage to gameplay," are you just reliant on "whales" to continue to invest in the game so you don't have to pay a slightly higher sub? For how long could that be sustained?
If the cash shop fails and the "revenue is not high enough", would you "lose your trust in Steven" for raising the sub price? Why would it be different now to change it versus after the game is launched? Wouldn't it be worse?
If the cash shop fails with just carrying cosmetics and the "revenue is not high enough" what is your list of things they cannot add that are pay to win? Where does that list begin and end?
Is a cosmetic that provides abilities that in game gear doesn't have available pay to win? What kind of abilities are acceptable and which aren't? Which skills are more important in this determination and why?
What if adding abilities is the only way to make the "insignificant cosmetics" significant enough to sustain that revenue stream? Is that okay?
If everything is going to be equal between cash shop and in-game to prevent it from having any advantage and being pay to win, does special and better appearances in cash shop then definitely not become the "winning" you were afraid of? How do you suggest it is kept equal so there "is no advantage"?
If Steven sells with a cash shop implemented and part of the game culture, do you see it more likely to be added to with pay to win features than if there is no cash shop in the culture as set by Steven and the foundational members?
If you are sure they wont expand cash shop into pay to win territory, then why do you think they chose it as a consistent form of revenue given what is asked above?
Now, I know these all are questioning the "trust of Steven," but that's okay... asking questions and having differing opinions is okay... you don't know him personally and you can even question the people you know personally from time to time and don't have to blindly trust anything.
@Iridianny I would like you to address my latest reply. If you choose to ignore it without acknowledging and justifying anything then I can only assume you see the logic in my assessment.
Why do you consider a lower subscription fee + shop a barrier to entry. While also trying to justify that higher subscription fee + no shop is NOT a barrier to entry?
I gave examples of costs and even with loose examples, you can see that as someone who is an infrequent or non-user of the shop, you are more likely to actually save money in the shop. And overtime, it's very likely that using your model of a higher subscription model, your actual net spend would be higher than without a cash shop for the average player.
And this doesn't take into account the business reasons behind not having a higher subscription fee which would act as a deterrent for players put off by the costs.
1. You’re not a victim, so stop acting like one
2. You started these threads by asserting IS is wrong and you’re right because stuff, then get defensive when your assertions are pushed back upon
3. You’re the consumer, your power is in your pocket, use it accordingly in the way you want.
Bottom line: you aren’t owed anything, even explanations. The cash shop is what it is, the price is on the tag, buy it or don’t buy it.
*sigh* I was trying to change the topic of discussion since you were just reiterating points that have already been made. Also, I didn't say "CUT." Why misquote?
This assumes that everyone is going to buy cosmetics which is a HUGE assumption. I believe that from using everyone's logic so far that cosmetics are insignificant to gameplay, only a few would. So, you wouldn't have to increase the sub cost very much to make up for the loss.
This was one example if you read what I said, all cosmetics can be applied to this example as all cosmetics apply to rp.
I am not against barriers to entry necessarily. Hence why I am okay with box prices. I don't like when one group is given the burden of the barrier over the collective whole given a small increase in the collective barrier of subscription.
That's nice. You ignored any form of discussions on the points I made about cash shops to reinforce how everyone is more interested in "telling me how wrong I am." This is another list of things you've considered I've done wrong?
As a consumer, on an open forum for feedback and suggestions on a product, I am not owed any explanations but I am allowed to post my opinion. You can not like it, I don't mind.
We have been through this several times already.
You are saying right here that you want the majority of the player base to pay extra for something that will not benefit them at all, somehow that makes the game more fair to you?
The one group that is "suffering" is the group that wants to participate in that feature. And they have a total choice to participate in it or not. They can pay for it if they want to use it or not pay for it if they do not want to use it.
You want to get rid of that power of choice, and then force ALL users to pay for it. Kind of unfair don't you think?
As I have said before, you are looking at the cosmetic cash shop items wrong.
People that fit in to your description above are not the target for those cosmetics. They are targeted with the in game cosmetics.
In a game where you can either customize your look to a ridiculously high degree, or you can slap on a one piece suit, the people that care about how they look and consider it to be an important part of their experience and immersion are going to take the customized look every time.
The cash shop cosmetics, the one piece costumes that have minimal customization, they are for people that do not consider looks to be an important part of the game, but don't want to look like shit.
There are many things you have not addressed in this thread to make it seem like this is anything more than an uninformed whine. Chief among them is why you think the cosmetic items on the cash shop are for the group of people you claim they are for and why the in game cosmetics (the ones that OBVIOUSLY fit that profile of gamer better) are not sufficient.
The only real assumption people can make based on your lack of addressing this point is that you want to get all looks in the game, hence the assumptions by some that you are upset that you missed out on some.
Since you use real world socializing as example let me put it this way - In real world people with fancy cloths and stuff pay for it themselves. Everyone doesnt chip in so that they have to pay less.
The cosmetic shop is part of the game and everyone should accept that. Having said that, I do think there are things that can be done better.
For me the biggest problem with the cosmetic shop is the amount of cosmetics that have already being sold and the ones to come until the game releases. By the time the game releases there will be a LOT of cosmetics (honestly I just care about mounts).
So imo what Intrepid can do is release cosmetics every 3-4 months from now on, or make 5-7 packs of cosmetics and only sell those until the game releases.
And once the game releases they can update the cosmetic shop every once in a while.
I expect things will slow by release.
Every cosmetic they create in the store can be reused in some way for NPCs. The more they make now, the more assets they’ll have for the game. The cosmetic shop, in that sense, is part of development.
After release there might be less of a need so maybe a new set each season (4 times a year). This is just my opinion of what makes sense, I don’t know that the plans are for the store after release. (I expect more items released at once, but done less often.)
That's how ridiculous that logic sounds.
Literally the Intrepid team is thinking about doing the right thing for the health of AoC, both in economy, development and gameplay, but of course better to say professional developers with years of experience are wrong.
Hey, look, there goes an MMO player who is not part of the Intrepid team, who doesn't know the team's ideas, doesn't know the problems they have to deal with, doesn't know the solutions they offer, doesn't know how the development of AoC is going but your negative opinion about cosmetics store + monthly sub must be correct, why should we believe professional developers with years of experience who are involved in the development of AoC?
The joke tells itself
/sarcasm
I’d love to actually hear some *conversation* about these points if anyone is able instead of just hurling insults.
Oh I will definitely take this one. I believe I can do it without insulting, but I can't promise to do it without revoking hypotheticals.
Let's assume that the purpose of cosmetics is to gain an additional 25% of revenue on average from players.
This would mean that every four months of paying $15, I would also buy one costume also costing $15. I know people like this.
If the cash shop failed with just cosmetic character gear I personally would expect it to start selling more cosmetic Freehold skins and similar things. At that point I might agree with your concerns a little, but not much.
The list of things that they cannot add is 'literally any ability at all'. We have discussions all the time about how even 'being able to mislead people about what type of gear you are wearing' is Pay-To-Win.
We continue to trust that there is no better appearance in the cash shop. Here's a good way to think of it.
The game has a setting, and that setting has some historical stuff, some unconfirmed weird legend stuff, and then some natural stuff. Some of the natural stuff looks really cool.
It does not make sense for the game to offer cosmetics for weird legends or historical stuff that would no longer exist as 'main appearances' for standard RP. But they can freely add anachronistic or other 'weird' cosmetics as purchaseable things. You can almost think of them as illusions.
When placed in the setting of Verra, if you chose to RP things that were restricted to the setting, then they would be illusions. Then they don't have to be rare.
The cosmetic item you get from befriending the great Elder Dragon and it allowing you to wear a cloak made of its molted scales, however, is an Achievement, directly from the game, and you can RP about a thing that happened within the game's setting.
The two cosmetics are potentially different in this way. Some of them are not like that (early ones, I find) and I can see an argument against their existence. As for why they chose it, it's because it works. People like costumes. People who have extra money and would like to support the artists and games they like, buy those costumes and skins. We know this, it has been working in many games for many years now. Because sometimes people like their illusions, and they will pay for them.
Costumes are a consistent form of revenue for many games, and this is easy to achieve because the 'default' appearance of a character or default expectation of a setting, does not suit everyone, and so, those people are charged a premium for things that do not fit the setting as much.
Ye, I told you on page one. Money talks. Video games arent as cheap to make and maintain as 15 years ago. And who would say no to $$$? Cosmetics are a big part of the gaming industry due to how vain ppl are. Its free money.
Why have you kept going on with this topic? There will never be another mmorpg that doesnt sell cosmetics. Never.
Coz it's a really, really, really old & repetitive topic here already. Most valid arguments for both sides have been reiterated numerous times in the past in the various similar threads already, and we also all knew how this thread will end already - in parallel lines, just like all the others. Neither side was ever able to convince the other. Plus, Ashes' already long beyond the point where this can be changed anyway.
Most ppl here are just tired of these threads, and likely nobody will take this topic seriously anymore, apart from the bored folks and newer members.
You could find many ppl here eager to have a conversation about details & implementations of the already announced features --- combat mechanics, class balances, content difficulty, node systems, caravan systems, artisan systems etc. But it's quite safe to assume cosmetics shop is not a topic ppl here are interested in.
To put it in a more general way, Ashes' already at a point that ppl are only eager to discuss & have conversations about its details, but not the fundamental designs that have already long been set in stone. Cash shop happens to be one of those fundamentals since it's tied to the business model, which is in turn tied to a shit ton of design decisions.
You can insist on talking about this for as long as you want, but bitter responses are likely all you'll get here.
10000% facts
Being "vain" isn't the only reason, @George_Black ... there's a wide spectrum of reasons why players support cash shop cosmetics.
Even the OP pointed out one of those reasons: the game's art direction.
If you've watched the monthly livestreams, the Art Team has consistently put out imaginative yet avante garde game assets.
I believe that makes the rest of your points redundant.
There is a lot of data out there to those in the industry of how much people spend on various things. This is data Intrepid will have, and we will not (I have similar data for the industries I am involved in now).
The price point that each cosmetic is set at is not some random figure, the frequency at which they are added will not be random, and the variation of designs will not be some haphazard happenstance.
Intrepid know what they are doing here, because they have done the research.
There is no reason at all to assume the cosmetic only cash shop + subscription fee won't be enough to keep the game going.
But what about lute boxes?
Without them, the strings will get wet if it rains, and it’ll never sound the same again.
How would you feel about having cosmetic skins for your lute box? They could be different depending on your race, and have different themes each month.
And maybe even for the instrument itself? I'm sure there are plenty to choose from.
Maybe this one for the Vaelune?
And this one for the Kaelar?
The stripey one feels sorta Nikua, to me.
And the speckly spangly one feels quite Empyrean.
And this one's just pure Py'Rai.
Are there any other lute designs you guys would like to see in the Cosmetic Store?
That last one looks great, but not 'cosmetic store' great. The ones you posted look rock solid for craftable ones. I like them a lot.
I generally feel like there is a minimum complexity for store cosmetics. The above for example isn't that much more complex than some of them, but getting the depth right on the various pieces would take a little extra careful skill and fills a little more specific a niche.