Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
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?