Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
So will it be possible to earn/convert in game currency for (Embers) Cash shop currency?
Uncommon Sense
Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I would like the feature. I think it would bury the issues with the cash shop cosmetics as it stands.
People/players who have more time to play and less real world funds can work* their way to a cosmetic purchase via an in game currency sink...More active players on the server, more incentive to stay subscribed, bigger population motive.
consumers with bursting wallets can still buy the (embers) with $ and purchase cosmetics too...
win win.
To clarify this is not a 2 way exchange. $--->Embers (cosmetics)<---game currency.
Unlike GW2 $--->Gems<--->gold.
So you cannot P2W buy gold. Just to be clear.
Obviously this is Hypothetical. Embers are not an entity as of yet merely eluded too.
But any Topics regarding them seem to be ignored or overlooked. So I'm bumping up Embers into a possible discussion again.
People/players who have more time to play and less real world funds can work* their way to a cosmetic purchase via an in game currency sink...More active players on the server, more incentive to stay subscribed, bigger population motive.
consumers with bursting wallets can still buy the (embers) with $ and purchase cosmetics too...
win win.
To clarify this is not a 2 way exchange. $--->Embers (cosmetics)<---game currency.
Unlike GW2 $--->Gems<--->gold.
So you cannot P2W buy gold. Just to be clear.
Obviously this is Hypothetical. Embers are not an entity as of yet merely eluded too.
But any Topics regarding them seem to be ignored or overlooked. So I'm bumping up Embers into a possible discussion again.
4
Comments
It is the very definition of pay to win if this is made possible.
People with more time and less coin in Ashes can just spend that time working on an in game cosmetic, rendering this whole thing pointless.
I don't how I could possible clarify the clarification anymore to the point some people are not able to grasp the concept of a 1 way exchange system.
This system increases value in both the Subscription and Cosmetic only cash shop. Does not inflate the in game economy with also provided a game currency sink. Exchange rate dependent
YOU CANNOT TURN EMBERS INTO IN GAME CURRENCY therfore it is not P2W
Not everyone in the world earns USD or has a minimum wage on parody with the USA.
How is adding more player access opportunity deemed "pointless" If anything this is the best solution to eliminate any controversy regarding the Subscription/Cash shop disparity.
The Embers themselves open up a whole other plethora of issues, but if they are being implemented this is at least 1 possible benefit from such a arbitrary token/currency system.
Suggesting the in game cosmetic are good enough for the less sounds like contempt for the less fortunate.
I'm not debating the quality of cosmetics, I am providing solutions/greater access for every players benefit....So by dismissing it what is exactly your motive then? Ego most likely.
What happened to doing the best for the game and community?
If the cash shop itself will not have pay to win items, @Noaani, how can this idea be at all pay to win?
To recap, the player with embers buys a cash shop item for another player ... the other player pays them gold or other in-game currency.
From a business perspective, the cash shop provides immediate revenue with immediate reward to the player.
Earning embers in game would erode some of that immediate revenue, but if designed well may act as part of the retention for subs, which provide consistent (I.e. more predictable) revenue. You could use a combination of analytics and AI to adjust the actual awards dynamically so you can control the rarity proportionate to the economy.
Look at this from the perspective of the player buying and then trading the embers.
They want gold, but rather than going and earning it, they buy embers and trade them to another player. Effectively, they have swapped money for progress in game.
How can you look at this as anything other than pay to win?
The concept of earning embers in game is basically pointless to me. If people want to spend time in game earning cosmetics, they have the in game cosmetics with which to do that.
Why would Intrepid compromise their secondary revenue stream in order to provide players a means of earning cosmetics in game, when they have already provided players with a means of earning cosmetics in game?
I personally like this idea, Be able to slowly earn embers and make a purchase once in a blue moon, while tons of people will still be buying cosmetics with cash/embers.
edit: was agreeing to earning embers, not exchanging in game currency for embers for clarification.
. I think embers should be bind on pickup and limited, like a daily login or something.
(Keep in mind that all the numbers are hypothetical, nobody knows how much anything will cost.)
A person wants a cosmetic store exclusive item. It costs, say, 200 Embers.
You can trade gold for Embers at a rate of 1,000 gold pieces per Ember.
So, it would cost 200,000 gold pieces to get that item. It might take the most powerful player an entire day of grinding to earn that much.
If a player could instead spend $20 to get 200 Embers, then it's the equivalent of paying $20 of real money to avoid a day of grinding. That means that you can now spend cash to get a real advantage in the game, and you now have pay to win.
Noanni is not arguing that the nature of the items in the store grant a pay to win situation, nor is there now a way for any in-game transactions between players to give a pay to win situation. It's just the ability to avoid a grind in game by spending money.
All that being said... I think the argument is garbage. (No offense, but it is.)
It's just the same old argument made by people for years about the cash shop being pay to win, just taken from another angle. But it's the same old, tired argument, and it's just as wrong.
items in the cash shop are optional and give no real benefit; they are only cosmetics. Anything you can get in the shop, you can get an equivalent or better in the game.
If we accept this as truth, then there will still be no pay to win if you can trade game money for Embers. Because it is 100% the player's decision that the leather hat with a purple feather being sold in the cash shop is something they desperately need. They can just get another hat (probably with a fancier feather) by earning it in-game instead. If they decide they want to get that hat, and don't want to spend real money for it, then they can feel free to sacrifice their gold for it.
Let me say it again; if this idea is pay to win, then we already have pay to win. And we don't. It's ridiculous.
Now, I also don't see a big advantage in allowing this. And there is a danger in that if you make it too cheap to get Embers, you devalue the cosmetic store, and if you make it too expensive, it might irritate players who see it as gouging. It's probably a no-win concept for Intrepid. So, I think they're better off not doing this. But not because this is in any way "pay to win".
If you can spend real life money and get in game gold, how is that not p2w? And how do we already have p2w Atama, if so?
I think you need to re-read what was said.
It's not possible to spend RL money to get gold. The OP is asking to spend ingame gold to buy cash shop cosmetics. Embers cannot be traded to anyone else, nor can the cash shop items. And since nothing in the cash shop is P2W, even if the system in the OP is implemented, nothing will be P2W anyways.
I don't see how you don't see this as pay to win. If you could buy a epic sword off the shop that gives you a advantage over someone else that has to earn that same sword with in game time/effort, that is automatically pay to win. I hope we can both agree on that, which will not be a option in AoC of course. Now say instead of that sword its a hat with feathers. I spend $200 on 200 embers which is enough to buy that cosmetic item. I trade those 200 embers for 200 gold. Now I spend that 200 gold on that epic sword. Its the same result, just with a few more steps. Your paying real money for shop currency(embers), trading it for in game currency(gold) and using that currency to buy in game items. Which would 100% be pay to win. We don't have pay to win as long as we can't trade the embers or cosmetics. If that isn't pay to win idk what is.
But this is clear as day p2w to me:
lol is there something stupid obvious I'm missing? Wouldn't be the first time. But what is it, I don't see it.
yes that would be pay to win.
I agree that will not be a option. He put earn/exchange and i personally focused on the earn embers part(without being able to farm them). As long as embers and cosmetics bought from the cash shop are not tradeable there will not be pay to win. I did think it would be cool if players could slowly accumulate embers without paying money. Maby after 6 months of play time you could buy 1 shop item. Or balance it however. Daily quest or daily login for a very small amount.
@Okeydoke and @Anarchy23 notice the arrows. ---> and <---
First line with arrows have Embers/cosmetics in the middle, with arrows pointing towards the middle from both gold and RL money. Meaning, cosmetics can be bought with either. That's the suggestion.
Second is the Guild Wars 2 way. Notice the double arrow <---> between gems and gold. They can be traded back and forth, meaning people can buy gems with RL money and sell for ingame gold. No such system is possible in AOC, nor is it suggested.
Yup
that could potentially work but would be hard to balance IMO. economies on all servers are different, and with age people have more gold in general. They would have to reprice them all the time. 100 gold for 1 ember could be impossible for a while on a fresh server. then become incredibly cheap later on when there is tons of gold on the server.
I'd gkick anyone who spent in game gold on a cosmetic instead of upgrading their actual gear lol
The person that ends up with the cosmetic is not the one that paid to win. The person that ended up with the gold did. They paid money to Intrepid for embers, then traded those embers with another player for progresion (gold).
Thus, pay to win.
Thanks for clarifying but I already understood that. I gave you a like for being nice and explaining it anyway:)
The thing that has not been addressed is why.
Why would Intrepid cut in to their revenue stream in order to give players a means to earn cosmetics in game (because that is all this is), when players already have a means of earning cosmetics in game?
I could absolutely see this argument - and would even support it - if Intrepid said all cosmetics were cash shop only. However, since they have said there will be equitable cosmetics earned in game, I simply fail to see the point for Intrepid to add this and cut in to that revenue stream.
Keep in mind, even people that would pay for cosmetics would use the in game method, so it absolutely would have a major impact on the revenue Intrepid make on the cash shop.
And once again, it is having that major impact on that revenue stream so that players can get functionality (means of earning cosmetics in game) that they already have.
The in shop cosmetics will be different from cosmetics you can get from in game effort. While I don't think you should be able to spend gold for embers, having something like a daily login for a very small amount of embers wouldn't effect their revenue much if at all. It could take a long time to earn enough embers to buy 1 item from the shop. If your earning your daily login embers your playing their game daily, keeping their servers populated and paying the sub fee. It would be a nice small reward. Most people willing to buy cosmetics aren't going to wait 6 months for the "hat." they want anyway. Then they would also get a "free" cosmetic after a while.
edit: Tired and had to reword something after rereading.
Nowhere in the OP’s proposal was there a provision that you can trade Embers with another player. If you assumed that, no wonder you thought it was P2W. Read the OP again.
I’m still against the idea for the reasons I stated, but it’s not P2W.
Your reward for paying your subscription fee is getting access to the game.
You do not need any further reward than that, and if you feel you do, then Intrepid need to spend more effort on that game.
Of all reasons to add a means of earning embers to the game that could exist, the desire to see them as a daily log in "reward" is the most pathetic, made up bullshit possible.
What is really happening is people want things without paying for them, and so are trying to justify it using mechanics that dying games implement as a cheap and dirty means to manipulate people in to continuing to play their game.
Eh I don't think that's really true. I feel your making assumptions about my intentions. I don't mind spending money for cosmetics. I'm not trying to manipulate anyone. The fact there is no box price and a sub is 15$ makes me completely support the cosmetic shop. I most likely will be buying cosmetics. This idea seemed to infuriate you for some reason.
It could be a daily log in or daily quest or any other means. It was merely a example. What's wrong with giving a small cosmetic reward to someone who has supported your game for the past 6 months or year. They will sell the same amount of cosmetics ether way. The idea might even boost their sales. say I play the game for 6 months and get a free white hat. Maybe I spend money to get a matching robe. Then I want a mount that matches so I buy a white owl mount. Was just a opinion, don't get your panties in a twist.
Regardless of how it is implemented, it will cut in to the store revenue for Intrepid, and no one has given a good reason as to why this should happen.
Without that reason, this literally is just people wanting handouts.
Daily log ins definitely can be a manipulation tactic. But usually by cheap games like free to play mobile games with little to no content. If someone has a good product, consistently bring out new content, and you log in everyday regardless of a "daily login", its just a small bonus. I'd consider ESO to be a decent game. 1000+ hours of content without expansions plus tons of expansions that arn't technically needed. They have a daily login. If it didn't have pay to win options, and wasn't 200+ dollars for all their expansions I'd be playing it. I wouldn't be logging in everyday just for the daily. Just saying as long as they do it right it doesn't have to be a underhanded tactic.
I still don't think it would cut store revenue. If someone is willing to wait 6months-1year for 1 hat without buying anything else, they weren't going to spend money on the cosmetic shop anyway. They still spent $90-$180 on your game, and the company loses nothing since its just a digital item.