Anyway. Why don't we call tanks "Steam Tanks" instead? Sounds more fantasy-ish, and more dwarven. Steamroller's also cool.
If you're talking about World of Warcraft, yes. This isn't WoW. Steam power isn't a thing on Verra, because magic has taken the place of those kinds of advances.
Maybe Steven will put magical tanks in the game for sieges (with turret-mounted potion launchers). If he does that, all is forgiven.
Maybe Steven will put magical tanks in the game for sieges (with turret-mounted potion launchers). If he does that, all is forgiven.
What will we call them?
I think a good name for them would be "plane". Cos, they move along the flat plane of the terrain, and they wipe enemies from the plane of existence.
Yep, "plane" is definitely the best name.
with magical propellers or magical jets though?
Whaaat? What kind of turret-mounted potion launchers have you ever been in that had propellers and/or jets...?! This has nothing to do with aviation. It's a "plane".
If someone wants their MMORPG experience to center around the collection of pretty clothes or checking Achievement (I hope AoC doesn't have those 'Achievements') boxes, knock your socks off.
Do I feel the game should anyhow be centered around this sort of player?
Nope.
1
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Buying stuff in the cash shop isn't an achievement, aside from, "I had money at the time, noticed something I liked, and was willing to spend it."
For anyone who looks at cosmetics as an achievement, they should be doing their best to earn whatever they can in-game. And I see no reason why they can't do that.
Subscriptions have been $15/mo since 2004 while everything else has gone up in price. $30/mo is not a lot of money for someone with a fulltime job."
Um, yes $30 can be a lot to a person with a full time job. You have no idea what my pay rate is, what my expenses are, and what my budget is. If Ashes had a subscription fee of $30, I wouldn't even consider it unless it was the only game I was going to play. I think the reason $15 still works after 18 years is that it is an amount that most people won't really miss, and that most people - even those without full time employment- can come up with without too much trouble. There's psychology behind it to. $15 doesn't sound like much. But when you start hitting over $20 people start thinking 'hey do you know how many groceries I can buy for $30?" and things like that.
Having a $100 box price with a $30 monthly fee would price many people out of the game. They just flat out don't have the money. I know I don't have the money right now to throw around like that. I appreciate what AoC is doing right now with deciding to go just with a subscription fee that will cover quarterly and monthly updates too.
Personally, I don't have problem with a cash cosmetics shop - and that's speaking as a Rper, a socializer, and a collector. It's not going to ruin my immersion or anything like that. So, I just don't see that as an issue for me. Even though they are funded through the development process, they have to keep the lights on beyond that. If they chose to do that through a cash shop, then cool. I look forward to snagging some outfits in the future. Just so long as they never become pay to win. Cosmetic items without stats is on thing, but having to pay to actually progress in the game - that's where I draw a line.
To each his own though. I just happen to like the direction AoC is taking.
Reposting some common sense after being berated for suggesting that cash shops suck. Good to see the direction AoC is going with their community. No room for discussion. Regardless of the bartle test's "authenticity" people still play mmo's in a variety of ways whether you want them to or not. Now, I know it's hard to imagine... but not everyone agrees with:
I agree completely. I don't think anyone commenting on this thread has any sort of idea what a true MMORPG experience should be. All of you beside OP seem to only see games as these virtual accomplishment factories, where daddy Steven can give you all hard earned points without P2W but fail to see how the cosmetic model only forces P2W one of the four player types of an MMO. Anyone who has a slight grasp on how an MMO should be designed knows that you need to meet the needs of all four types of players.
Adding a cosmetic shop puts an unfair social pressure on the social player type to spend their money to look the coolest while they're roleplaying or socializing in the game. You are all so worried about having P2W affect your favorite aspect that you're all quick to forget about the socializers point of view.
Let's imagine a similar situation from the achievers perspective. There is a shop but all you can buy are achievements in game that you can't otherwise complete without spending your real world money. To the Socializer this doesn't matter at all and has no effect on the game they're playing. The killer player type doesn't care because they only want to kill other players and the explorers don't care as long as they don't have to pay to explore new areas.
Let's imagine it again from the explorers perspective, the cosmetic shop is now the Lands shop. It doesn't add any new gameplay but it does add massive lands to explore but you can find all the same materials in the non-paid for area. It doesn't achieve anything for your account besides giving you new places to visit. The only ones who would really care in this situation are the players who love to just explore games.
Let's now imagine one more time from the perspective of the killer player type. The cosmetic shop is now the Kill Shop. You can buy tokens that allow you to kill players and that's the only gameplay change, it only affects players who like to engage in PVP. The socializers don't care because they're not killing players, the achievers don't care as long as they don't have to kill players to achieve something and the explorers really could care less, in fact they'd sing it's praises because it means they'll less likely to get killed while exploring.
We can see that in all of these situations we've unfairly placed the P2W model on 1/4th of our playerbase.
It's true it's too late to change it for this game which is why I don't think this is the pinnacle of MMOs by any means.
Not thinking of Socializers gameplay decisions and just saying we can't have better is very closed minded.
The excuse that a box price and subscription makes the barrier of entry to high is really a cop out. Ashes could charge $100 entry + $30 subscription fee and they'd be perfectly fine. The fact that people can't stomach a slight price increase to not have a cash shop baffles me. Subscriptions have been $15/mo since 2004 while everything else has gone up in price. $30/mo is not a lot of money for someone with a fulltime job. People pay $200/mo for cable ffs.
There are plenty of other ways to allow players to try the game without paying the box price or the subscription, you guys just eat up the corporate bullshit though. Like actually letting them just try the game, if it's actually good then it will have no problem hooking them in the first few levels. I hate that argument that you have to play an MMO for 100+ hours to start to see the fun. That's just another cop out for poor game design.
This place is going to be just like the WoW forums but instead of a bunch of brainwashed blizzard shills it will be a bunch of unaccomplished losers who worship Steven and see him as some sort of God.
If you've already spent money on this game, that doesn't even have a release date, then you're already lost. That's like paying for a meal you can't eat for 5 years because the chef needs help funding his dream to build a kitchen first and then he will make all the meals, he promises, and it will be like the best meal you've ever eaten in your entire life.
A one week trial to as a way to "remove" the barrier of entry on a $100 game with a $30 sub is an absurdly foolish idea and does indeed sounds entitled AF
Similarly, $200/mo. for cable is why I don't have cable. $100 for Ashes + $30/mo. would be why I wouldn't have Ashes. Keep in mind that I could choose to pay that and be fine financially, but I'd consider that robbery on the part of Intrepid and would not support them, despite my ever-growing hype for the game.
This is a game. Bottom-tier priority unless you make your living by gaming. If other people who are more affluent/invested buying outfits and skins keeps the game running at an affordable level for those with less financial stability, I support that whole heartedly.
Your idea of an absurd box price and doubling the standard subscription rate of the genre, however, comes across as entitled, elitist, and exclusionary to those in a lower financial bracket. It's an idea someone with money to burn would tolerate and someone who is struggling but plays games to find what peace they can and relax would fear. Think of the lesser-off folks, always.
As a side note, making a new post for this was a waste of forum space. Abandoning one conversation to start it again because people disagree with you makes it seem like you're just looking to speak into an echo chamber. Bad form.
I don't think that they plan a $100 box cost, or any box cost at all. I also believe that $15 per month is the planned fee, so I don't see where you get the "$100 for Ashes +$30/mo." that you are trying to complain about.
I don't think that they plan a $100 box cost, or any box cost at all. I also believe that $15 per month is the planned fee, so I don't see where you get the "$100 for Ashes +$30/mo." that you are trying to complain about.
I know that there is no box cost and it won't be $30 a month.
It is the original posters idea to raise the subscription cost to $30 a month and include a $100 box fee as a way to get rid of the cash shop. They think making the game inaccessible to lower financial brackets is a good fix for having a cash shop as a revenue stream.
A one week trial to as a way to "remove" the barrier of entry on a $100 game with a $30 sub is an absurdly foolish idea and does indeed sounds entitled AF
Similarly, $200/mo. for cable is why I don't have cable. $100 for Ashes + $30/mo. would be why I wouldn't have Ashes. Keep in mind that I could choose to pay that and be fine financially, but I'd consider that robbery on the part of Intrepid and would not support them, despite my ever-growing hype for the game.
Almost any video game is $60 and has been for many years. Is ashes not worth the price of 2 games? It seems that a lot think it is and will be the solution to mmos. Yet, one of the main issues with any mmo is a cash shop and they are starting with it.
I’m not saying that I necessarily agree with franquito that it needs to be exactly $100 and $30. The idea is that is *could* be and it *wouldn’t* be that unreasonable. It’s not ridiculous for the price of *anything* to increase after so many years. Not to mention the increasing work it takes to make a video game of ashes quality and why everyone believes they need multiple forms of revenue. Also that it’s also not the only option to do a cash shop and there are MANY ways to monetize *fairly*.
If other people who are more affluent/invested buying outfits and skins keeps the game running at an affordable level for those with less financial stability, I support that whole heartedly.
I don’t see how you can… 1. Believe that only affluent people buy cash shop items when it’s probably more likely the opposite as I know few affluent adults who regularly play video games unless they are, like you said, making a living doing so. 2. Think it’s okay to put half the burden of monetization of an mmo on cosmetic items and a subset of the game’s population instead of a slight increase for everyone and call *me* “entitled” for suggesting the opposite is a better idea. I stand by that it’s better to fairly and equally distribute the burden instead of wanting those with more money than you to solve any of your problems, including solely supporting half of the upkeep of the game you also play.
As a side note, making a new post for this was a waste of forum space. Abandoning one conversation to start it again because people disagree with you makes it seem like you're just looking to speak into an echo chamber. Bad form.
You sound like an “elitist” who feels they have to shut down a “waste of space” forum thread with your then in return waste of space response and empty insults that keep the thread alive because you get upset at opposing ideas. If you read any of the two threads you’d already see everything you said was already said by someone else. So, bad response.
I know few affluent adults who regularly play video games unless they are, like you said, making a living doing so.
Then get to know more people.
There are so many such people, that many games base their entire monetization scheme on them.
Do you think it is anything other than affluent people that drop $50,000 a year on games like Archeage?
While I am not condoning that type of monetization, it is fairly well established that there are a lot of people with a lot of money that spend a lot of time playing online games.
The community is definitely open for discussion, it's one of the reason's stuff like the combat and the dwarf models are/have been changed significantly, because the community came together and said "this sucks". But when you say dumb shit like this
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. They are unfairly putting the burden of monetization on the socializer type players who will:
1. Be the first to build a community in the game.
2. Are more likely to pay for cosmetics due to social pressure.
3. Are the reason to create an mmorpg and not just an rpg.
then your opinion is chucked out the window. You will never be taken seriously when you try and argue that Intrepid should add P2W to the shop instead of cosmetics. Honestly probably the worst take I've seen. Dumb as fuck.
It was a hypothetical stance to show that when it comes to affecting *your* type of gameplay it’s not okay now. Which you’ve proven here with your comment. I am against cash shops in all forms, it was to try to produce some sympathy and perspective for the players affected by cosmetic shops. Which seems impossible at this point. If you’ve read anything I’ve said you’d see I advocate for higher sub and box price with a free trial and don’t like cash shops. Have a great day.
As someone who enjoys the fashion and cosmetic aspects, I promise you it is not “gameplay” and there is no “winning” it no matter how much you pay. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the four player types, considering nothing about being a Socializer includes fashion or individual appearance.
You’re confusing the Achiever with the Socializer maybe, because it’s the achievers who want to show off and have prestige. But most people don’t actually see genuine prestige in having purchasable items, so even that is a weak argument.
As someone who enjoys the fashion and cosmetic aspects, I promise you it is not “gameplay” and there is no “winning” it no matter how much you pay.
What makes you think you determine what is and isn’t gameplay for every gamer? Actually, yes, people can find enjoyment out of cosmetic aspects of games, hence why people spend WOW end game farming for transmog and mounts.
And thank you for supporting my point that paying for that part of the game removes that potential “win” and enjoyment of collection as an in game feature.
I know few affluent adults who regularly play video games unless they are, like you said, making a living doing so.
I mean, Steven himself is one such person.
I’m not talking about investors. I’m talking about average affluent adults who typically aren’t playing videos games. Steven is not a player, he is investing in creating a video game that will potentially bring him millions in profit. General players get no profit.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
2. Think it’s okay to put half the burden of monetization of an mmo on cosmetic items and a subset of the game’s population instead of a slight increase for everyone.
Why is it when you talk about monetization, when talking about cosmetics you say half the burden is being put on them but when you talk about the sub/cost, you are saying it's a slight increase. If half the burden is on cosmetics then the sub/cost needs to be doubled to make up for them, which doesn't sound like a slight increase to me.
Calling it a burden is an exaggeration. It's not like they have to buy cosmetics. It's an option and they get something for doing so. Since players are part of the content in an MMO, it also helps them by lowering the barrier of entry so more people can play.
As someone who enjoys the fashion and cosmetic aspects, I promise you it is not “gameplay” and there is no “winning” it no matter how much you pay.
What makes you think you determine what is and isn’t gameplay for every gamer? Actually, yes, people can find enjoyment out of cosmetic aspects of games, hence why people spend WOW end game farming for transmog and mounts.
And thank you for supporting my point that paying for that part of the game removes that potential “win” and enjoyment of collection as an in game feature.
.....And they will be able to do that in Ashes.
I thought your point was being able to "look good" from a cash shop is a problem since people should only be able to "look good" by achieving something in the game. I don't think one-shotting old bosses for transmog is much of an achievement. If so many people do this then doesn't it mean people are against your original premise and want to be able to "look good" without achieving a lot?
I know few affluent adults who regularly play video games unless they are, like you said, making a living doing so.
I mean, Steven himself is one such person.
I’m not talking about investors. I’m talking about average affluent adults who typically aren’t playing videos games. Steven is not a player, he is investing in creating a video game that will potentially bring him millions in profit. General players get no profit.
Steven has run guilds across multiple games. He started this project after being frustrated with how Archeage went. I don't think it's correct to just call him an investor. If he was just looking to make money then he would have just made a mobile game instead of trying to create the most expensive type of game, an MMO. Not retiring would have also been a good option for him if he wanted more money.
2. Think it’s okay to put half the burden of monetization of an mmo on cosmetic items and a subset of the game’s population instead of a slight increase for everyone.
Why is it when you talk about monetization, when talking about cosmetics you say half the burden is being put on them but when you talk about the sub/cost, you are saying it's a slight increase. If half the burden is on cosmetics then the sub/cost needs to be doubled to make up for them, which doesn't sound like a slight increase to me.
There are 2 forms of monetization right now. Cosmetic cash shop and sub cost. 1/2 = half.
No, it doesn’t need to be doubled because according to you, it’s an optional cost, so it’s not worth *exactly* another $15/month per sub. It could easily be worth just an extra $1/month per sub given it’s very “optional”.
/shrug I don’t know the exact math, do you?
Calling it a burden is an exaggeration. It's not like they have to buy cosmetics. It's an option and they get something for doing so.
It is a burden if you enjoy cosmetics and collection and that is monetized beyond the sub cost. Yes it’s an option, and I think cash shops are a bad option. I wrote a lot about cash shops a little back, you could respond to that if you disagree.
I don't think one-shotting old bosses for transmog is much of an achievement.
I agree! WOW fails at this and they also have a cash shop. I am simply pointing out that many people enjoy cosmetics and collection in an mmo. For different reasons, obviously. Maybe to just collect, maybe to rp, maybe to show off, maybe to play dress up. Who cares? The point is a LOT of people *enjoy* it as a gameplay mechanic in mmos.
Well your initial post comes across very demeaning, however. Box cost will prevent many people from ever entering even with a free trial because most people have $15 bucks a month but far fewer have an extra hundred sitting around at all times. Your largest portion of the player base will likely earn an average salary or lower. I agree cosmetic purchases aren't great, Its nice to have a set of armor that is unique when you earned it and its rare to see, less nice when everyone can buy a similarly epic set. However a cosmetic shop won't ruin the game and its far less of a dire situation than you indicate. Look at League of Legends??? Massive player base and retention and a cash shop. Its pretty simple honestly, P2W earns tons of money just look at Lost Ark, but if you want the game to be as fun as possible for the average player and still have a way to earn cash within the game, a cash shop is a far better option than P2W. Again LoL has made billions with a cosmetics only shop, 0 P2W. Your hard focused on how right you are instead of taking a more relaxed approach, "common sense" in this case would be for you to do more research into why YOU hate cosmetic shops so much and if you find you truly can't bear them, go find a game without a cosmetic shop, as they definitely exist. I want to be the coolest looking character on the map when AOC comes out, I won't be but im ok with that.
I want to be the coolest looking character on the map when AOC comes out, I won't be but im ok with that.
This is such a funny thing to me that I keep hearing from people on these threads. As if the only reason I’d be upset about a cash shop is because “people will look cooler than me.” That’s never once been something that crossed my mind, but it shows insight to everyone else’s mind who play these games. I will say it one last time.
I enjoy collection and cosmetics in an mmo for myself. I don’t care about other’s gear.
I am paying a sub fee to enjoy an mmo in all its parts, including what I enjoy as stated.
Now, I have to pay extra to enjoy the collection part of any mmo that is enjoyed by a lot of players, because a multi million dollar fully funded game company “deserves extra cash.”
I believe the extra art, costumes, appearances, or whatever you want to call it should come with my sub. Period. The same way you all don’t want box price for expansions and the extra content and believe it should come with your sub.
I think Steven finds it hilarious to read how all of you defend why he needs more of your money for a game that isn’t even out yet and has no release date. You should keep it going on this thread to show your devotion to him and maybe he will even acknowledge you one day.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
2. Think it’s okay to put half the burden of monetization of an mmo on cosmetic items and a subset of the game’s population instead of a slight increase for everyone.
Why is it when you talk about monetization, when talking about cosmetics you say half the burden is being put on them but when you talk about the sub/cost, you are saying it's a slight increase. If half the burden is on cosmetics then the sub/cost needs to be doubled to make up for them, which doesn't sound like a slight increase to me.
There are 2 forms of monetization right now. Cosmetic cash shop and sub cost. 1/2 = half.
No, it doesn’t need to be doubled because according to you, it’s an optional cost, so it’s not worth *exactly* another $15/month per sub. It could easily be worth just an extra $1/month per sub given it’s very “optional”.
/shrug I don’t know the exact math, do you?
WTF is this according to you nonsense. It's a fact. You don't need to buy the cosmetics to play the game. You are talking about augmenting the cost that is required to play the game to make up for revenue that is lost from removing an optional cash shop.
I know that WoWs sub was $15 almost 20 years ago and hasn't increased. Instead, they opted to include a cash shop and sell gold to increase revenue. I also know some of the most popular games in the world are run on cosmetics so it probably can be quiet a lot depending on how you leverage it.
What i get from this is that cosmetics can be a big portion of revenue and offset the money they bring in isn't done by "slightly" increasing the required cost.
Calling it a burden is an exaggeration. It's not like they have to buy cosmetics. It's an option and they get something for doing so.
It is a burden if you enjoy cosmetics and collection and that is monetized beyond the sub cost. Yes it’s an option, and I think cash shops are a bad option. I wrote a lot about cash shops a little back, you could respond to that if you disagree.
You can still collect in-game cosmetics, even if there is a cash shop. With the the fact that costumes replace your whole set and can't be modified, there is a good reason to get in-game cosmetics so you can build your own set.
Only people who don't like it are completionists who need to have everything which is not realistic, even without the cash shop.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I think Steven finds it hilarious to read how all of you defend why he needs more of your money for a game that isn’t even out yet and has no release date. You should keep it going on this thread to show your devotion to him and maybe he will even acknowledge you one day.
I'm not sure how arguing for in-game shops equates to defending Steven since we are talking about the scenario where we have a cash shop in a game that has been released.
Are you trying to shift the topic to the monthly cosmetics?
Comments
Come on, if you're going to troll everyone, at least do it properly...
Maybe Steven will put magical tanks in the game for sieges (with turret-mounted potion launchers). If he does that, all is forgiven.
What will we call them?
Goombas.
Goomba:
I think a good name for them would be "plane". Cos, they move along the flat plane of the terrain, and they wipe enemies from the plane of existence.
Yep, "plane" is definitely the best name.
You guys are the best.
with magical propellers or magical jets though?
Whaaat? What kind of turret-mounted potion launchers have you ever been in that had propellers and/or jets...?! This has nothing to do with aviation. It's a "plane".
It's "yet another cash shop thread".
Not even an artificial sarcastic "rename the tank" thread-hijack can distract ppl from yet another cash shop thread.
Do I feel the game should anyhow be centered around this sort of player?
Nope.
For anyone who looks at cosmetics as an achievement, they should be doing their best to earn whatever they can in-game. And I see no reason why they can't do that.
(Let's keep this thread alive FOREVAH!)
Um, yes $30 can be a lot to a person with a full time job. You have no idea what my pay rate is, what my expenses are, and what my budget is. If Ashes had a subscription fee of $30, I wouldn't even consider it unless it was the only game I was going to play. I think the reason $15 still works after 18 years is that it is an amount that most people won't really miss, and that most people - even those without full time employment- can come up with without too much trouble. There's psychology behind it to. $15 doesn't sound like much. But when you start hitting over $20 people start thinking 'hey do you know how many groceries I can buy for $30?" and things like that.
Having a $100 box price with a $30 monthly fee would price many people out of the game. They just flat out don't have the money. I know I don't have the money right now to throw around like that. I appreciate what AoC is doing right now with deciding to go just with a subscription fee that will cover quarterly and monthly updates too.
Personally, I don't have problem with a cash cosmetics shop - and that's speaking as a Rper, a socializer, and a collector. It's not going to ruin my immersion or anything like that. So, I just don't see that as an issue for me. Even though they are funded through the development process, they have to keep the lights on beyond that. If they chose to do that through a cash shop, then cool. I look forward to snagging some outfits in the future. Just so long as they never become pay to win. Cosmetic items without stats is on thing, but having to pay to actually progress in the game - that's where I draw a line.
To each his own though. I just happen to like the direction AoC is taking.
Pay to win means you pay money to have more power than other player's. Cosmetic items by definition are the antithesis of that.
Similarly, $200/mo. for cable is why I don't have cable. $100 for Ashes + $30/mo. would be why I wouldn't have Ashes. Keep in mind that I could choose to pay that and be fine financially, but I'd consider that robbery on the part of Intrepid and would not support them, despite my ever-growing hype for the game.
This is a game. Bottom-tier priority unless you make your living by gaming. If other people who are more affluent/invested buying outfits and skins keeps the game running at an affordable level for those with less financial stability, I support that whole heartedly.
Your idea of an absurd box price and doubling the standard subscription rate of the genre, however, comes across as entitled, elitist, and exclusionary to those in a lower financial bracket. It's an idea someone with money to burn would tolerate and someone who is struggling but plays games to find what peace they can and relax would fear. Think of the lesser-off folks, always.
As a side note, making a new post for this was a waste of forum space. Abandoning one conversation to start it again because people disagree with you makes it seem like you're just looking to speak into an echo chamber. Bad form.
Finally, Tank is a bad name.
I know that there is no box cost and it won't be $30 a month.
It is the original posters idea to raise the subscription cost to $30 a month and include a $100 box fee as a way to get rid of the cash shop. They think making the game inaccessible to lower financial brackets is a good fix for having a cash shop as a revenue stream.
I am disagreeing with their idea.
Almost any video game is $60 and has been for many years. Is ashes not worth the price of 2 games? It seems that a lot think it is and will be the solution to mmos. Yet, one of the main issues with any mmo is a cash shop and they are starting with it.
I’m not saying that I necessarily agree with franquito that it needs to be exactly $100 and $30. The idea is that is *could* be and it *wouldn’t* be that unreasonable. It’s not ridiculous for the price of *anything* to increase after so many years. Not to mention the increasing work it takes to make a video game of ashes quality and why everyone believes they need multiple forms of revenue. Also that it’s also not the only option to do a cash shop and there are MANY ways to monetize *fairly*.
I don’t see how you can… 1. Believe that only affluent people buy cash shop items when it’s probably more likely the opposite as I know few affluent adults who regularly play video games unless they are, like you said, making a living doing so. 2. Think it’s okay to put half the burden of monetization of an mmo on cosmetic items and a subset of the game’s population instead of a slight increase for everyone and call *me* “entitled” for suggesting the opposite is a better idea. I stand by that it’s better to fairly and equally distribute the burden instead of wanting those with more money than you to solve any of your problems, including solely supporting half of the upkeep of the game you also play.
You sound like an “elitist” who feels they have to shut down a “waste of space” forum thread with your then in return waste of space response and empty insults that keep the thread alive because you get upset at opposing ideas. If you read any of the two threads you’d already see everything you said was already said by someone else. So, bad response.
There are so many such people, that many games base their entire monetization scheme on them.
Do you think it is anything other than affluent people that drop $50,000 a year on games like Archeage?
While I am not condoning that type of monetization, it is fairly well established that there are a lot of people with a lot of money that spend a lot of time playing online games.
I mean, Steven himself is one such person.
As someone who enjoys the fashion and cosmetic aspects, I promise you it is not “gameplay” and there is no “winning” it no matter how much you pay. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the four player types, considering nothing about being a Socializer includes fashion or individual appearance.
You’re confusing the Achiever with the Socializer maybe, because it’s the achievers who want to show off and have prestige. But most people don’t actually see genuine prestige in having purchasable items, so even that is a weak argument.
What makes you think you determine what is and isn’t gameplay for every gamer? Actually, yes, people can find enjoyment out of cosmetic aspects of games, hence why people spend WOW end game farming for transmog and mounts.
And thank you for supporting my point that paying for that part of the game removes that potential “win” and enjoyment of collection as an in game feature.
I’m not talking about investors. I’m talking about average affluent adults who typically aren’t playing videos games. Steven is not a player, he is investing in creating a video game that will potentially bring him millions in profit. General players get no profit.
Calling it a burden is an exaggeration. It's not like they have to buy cosmetics. It's an option and they get something for doing so. Since players are part of the content in an MMO, it also helps them by lowering the barrier of entry so more people can play.
.....And they will be able to do that in Ashes.
I thought your point was being able to "look good" from a cash shop is a problem since people should only be able to "look good" by achieving something in the game. I don't think one-shotting old bosses for transmog is much of an achievement. If so many people do this then doesn't it mean people are against your original premise and want to be able to "look good" without achieving a lot?
Steven has run guilds across multiple games. He started this project after being frustrated with how Archeage went. I don't think it's correct to just call him an investor. If he was just looking to make money then he would have just made a mobile game instead of trying to create the most expensive type of game, an MMO. Not retiring would have also been a good option for him if he wanted more money.
There are 2 forms of monetization right now. Cosmetic cash shop and sub cost. 1/2 = half.
No, it doesn’t need to be doubled because according to you, it’s an optional cost, so it’s not worth *exactly* another $15/month per sub. It could easily be worth just an extra $1/month per sub given it’s very “optional”.
/shrug I don’t know the exact math, do you?
It is a burden if you enjoy cosmetics and collection and that is monetized beyond the sub cost. Yes it’s an option, and I think cash shops are a bad option. I wrote a lot about cash shops a little back, you could respond to that if you disagree.
I agree! WOW fails at this and they also have a cash shop. I am simply pointing out that many people enjoy cosmetics and collection in an mmo. For different reasons, obviously. Maybe to just collect, maybe to rp, maybe to show off, maybe to play dress up. Who cares? The point is a LOT of people *enjoy* it as a gameplay mechanic in mmos.
This is such a funny thing to me that I keep hearing from people on these threads. As if the only reason I’d be upset about a cash shop is because “people will look cooler than me.” That’s never once been something that crossed my mind, but it shows insight to everyone else’s mind who play these games. I will say it one last time.
I enjoy collection and cosmetics in an mmo for myself. I don’t care about other’s gear.
I am paying a sub fee to enjoy an mmo in all its parts, including what I enjoy as stated.
Now, I have to pay extra to enjoy the collection part of any mmo that is enjoyed by a lot of players, because a multi million dollar fully funded game company “deserves extra cash.”
I believe the extra art, costumes, appearances, or whatever you want to call it should come with my sub. Period. The same way you all don’t want box price for expansions and the extra content and believe it should come with your sub.
I know that WoWs sub was $15 almost 20 years ago and hasn't increased. Instead, they opted to include a cash shop and sell gold to increase revenue. I also know some of the most popular games in the world are run on cosmetics so it probably can be quiet a lot depending on how you leverage it.
What i get from this is that cosmetics can be a big portion of revenue and offset the money they bring in isn't done by "slightly" increasing the required cost.
You can still collect in-game cosmetics, even if there is a cash shop. With the the fact that costumes replace your whole set and can't be modified, there is a good reason to get in-game cosmetics so you can build your own set.
Only people who don't like it are completionists who need to have everything which is not realistic, even without the cash shop.
I'm not sure how arguing for in-game shops equates to defending Steven since we are talking about the scenario where we have a cash shop in a game that has been released.
Are you trying to shift the topic to the monthly cosmetics?