So will it be possible to earn/convert in game currency for (Embers) Cash shop currency?

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

It will not.

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.

Uncommon Sense

A 1 way exchange into embers is in no way pay to win.
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?

Taleof2Cities

Noaani wrote: »

It will not.

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.

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.

CROW3

I generally like this idea, as long as embers are incredibly hard or take quite a bit of time to earn. That way, over a very long period of time, it’s possible to collect cosmetics from within the game, without completely compromising the revenue stream of the shop.

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.

Noaani

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

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.

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?

Anarchy1

Correct me if I'm wrong or maybe we don't know but I was under the assumption that buying items from the cosmetic shop will Be bound on purchase. I can't see how it wont be. So you cant trade gold for bought cosmetics. If you could trade gold for bought cosmetics like ESO for example, that would be pay to win. You could buy embers for cash, purchase and gift cosmetics, and collect in game currency. There's no way Intrepid Studios would miss this and allow it to happen. There will be no pay to win at all.

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.

Atama

I think that @Noaani's argument is that this is pay to win if you have this situation...

(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".

Okeydoke

Alright what am I missing. Not quite understanding the OP's explanation, but I read the way Taleof2cities and Atama boiled it down. It sounds like p2w on it's face to me.

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?

Nerror

Okeydoke wrote: »

Alright what am I missing. I didn't read all of the OP, but I read the way Taleof2cities and Atama boiled it down. It sounds like p2w on it's face to me.

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.

Anarchy1

Atama wrote: »

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.

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.

Okeydoke

I've re read everything a few times now. I don't understand the OP's symbols and way of explaining it.

But this is clear as day p2w to me:

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

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.

lol is there something stupid obvious I'm missing? Wouldn't be the first time. But what is it, I don't see it.

Anarchy1

Okeydoke wrote: »

I've re read everything a few times now. I don't understand the OP's symbols and way of explaining it.

But this is clear as day p2w to me:

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

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.

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.

Nerror

There is no trading embers or shop items for gold in the OP or Atama's post. Ya'll are misreading I think

Anarchy1

Nerror wrote: »

Okeydoke wrote: »

Alright what am I missing. I didn't read all of the OP, but I read the way Taleof2cities and Atama boiled it down. It sounds like p2w on it's face to me.

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 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.

unknownsystemerror

While they are great mental gymnastics and pearl clutching, it really is a nothing burger. You will not be able to buy cosmetics from the shop with in game gold. You will not be able to buy embers with in game gold. You will not be able to transfer shop cosmetics to other accounts. You can do various things with Intrepid Bucks earned through referrals including cash back (restrictions apply), purchasing sub-time, and embers which can then be spent on the shop for cosmetics, which then are once again, account bound. You cannot gift accounts to others. For the entire breadth of development the mantra of anything with a whiff of p2w has been avoided and will not happen. The only definition of what is "p2w" that matters here is Steven's and he has been clear on what he considers it to be.

Nerror

Uncommon Sense wrote: »

To clarify this is not a 2 way exchange.
$--->Embers (cosmetics)<---game currency.

Unlike GW2 $--->Gems<--->gold.

@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.

Okeydoke

Ok I think I was caught up in the way Taleof2cities boiled it down, which is p2w. But that is not what the OP is arguing for I assume now. OP would just like the option to buy cosmetics with in game gold, and that in game gold goes to Intrepid, not another player.

Nerror

Okeydoke wrote: »

Ok I think I was caught up in the way Taleof2cities boiled it down, which is p2w. But that is not what the OP is arguing for I assume now. OP would just like the option to buy cosmetics with in game gold, and that in game gold goes to Intrepid, not another player.

Yup

Anarchy1

Okeydoke wrote: »

Ok I think I was caught up in the way Taleof2cities boiled it down, which is p2w. But that is not what the OP is arguing for I assume now. OP would just like the option to buy cosmetics with in game gold, and that in game gold goes to Intrepid, not another player.

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.

Nerror

My 2 cents are, it's going to be causing problems for the economy if you even indirectly tie ingame gold to cash shop items/embers. So for that and other reasons posted in this thread already, I vote no thanks to this idea.

Child Item