So I understand people want to be able to earn cash-shop cosmetics with in-game gold, but Intrepid can't keep the lights on, the payroll flowing, the servers going, and everything else they need to do with in-game gold. If that was the case they could just generate as much as they wanted.
Part of the value of a cash shop cosmetic is that you paid "real world cash" for it.
Given that Intrepid is dedicated to making sure there are a lot of in-game obtainable cosmetics, the people who can't afford more than the $15 sub will have more than enough time-sinks to keep them occupied.
As far as the cash-shop cosmetics, those are there to give Intrepid the revenue they need to keep the game going.
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.
You probably can't see it because you don't understand what the cosmetic shop is.
"buy an epic sword off the shop" -- WHAT are you talking about? The Cosmetic Shop has Cosmetics, not weapons nor gear nor potions nor boosters.
Further, cosmetics can't be traded, nor can embers. Your whole post is filled with untruths.
Also the purchased cosmetics will not be on par with in-game cosmetics, they are BENEATH in-game cosmetics.
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.
The cosmetics in the shop are purely cosmetic and do not affect characters' performance or progression.
Regardless of how you get a cosmetic, IT CAN'T HELP YOU WIN.
So your definition has been soured by the drugs you're taking.
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.
The Cosmetic Shop is primarily a revenue source for the developer and I want them to flourish, so on this ground I would be opposed to this idea.
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.
You probably can't see it because you don't understand what the cosmetic shop is.
"buy an epic sword off the shop" -- WHAT are you talking about? The Cosmetic Shop has Cosmetics, not weapons nor gear nor potions nor boosters.
Further, cosmetics can't be traded, nor can embers. Your whole post is filled with untruths.
Also the purchased cosmetics will not be on par with in-game cosmetics, they are BENEATH in-game cosmetics.
Man you must not have even read my comment. I was just stating a example of what definitive Pay to win is. It was obvious, I even said which will NOT be a option in AoC OF COURSE. Yes I agree the cosmetic shop only has cosmetics, but IF its possible to trade them that can translate into pay to win IF you could trade the cosmetics. Again I never said it will be in the game and I can pretty much guarantee will NOT be possible. Purchased cosmetics WILL be on par with in game cosmetics. They aren't going to sell cosmetics beneath in game cosmetics. That would be stupid. In most games the in shop cosmetics are even better then the in game cosmetics. In ashes they will be equal quality, but different.
This post like that post saying cosmetic shop is an issue for "social players" bla bla non-sense.
Some things are not going to change. Cosmetic shop will be there and in-game gold to ember conversion wont be there cuz if that were possible people would just farm gold and trade that for real world money. Those who dont get "how" even after all these comments on just how it will undermine the principles of AoC just think of it as magic cuz it is beyond your comprehension then.
AoC isn't being built for convenience but immersion.
Move on and stop bringing attention to this pointless post.
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.
You probably can't see it because you don't understand what the cosmetic shop is.
"buy an epic sword off the shop" -- WHAT are you talking about? The Cosmetic Shop has Cosmetics, not weapons nor gear nor potions nor boosters.
Further, cosmetics can't be traded, nor can embers. Your whole post is filled with untruths.
Also the purchased cosmetics will not be on par with in-game cosmetics, they are BENEATH in-game cosmetics.
Man you must not have even read my comment. I was just stating a example of what definitive Pay to win is. It was obvious, I even said which will NOT be a option in AoC OF COURSE. Yes I agree the cosmetic shop only has cosmetics, but IF its possible to trade them that can translate into pay to win IF you could trade the cosmetics. Again I never said it will be in the game and I can pretty much guarantee will NOT be possible. Purchased cosmetics WILL be on par with in game cosmetics. They aren't going to sell cosmetics beneath in game cosmetics. That would be stupid. In most games the in shop cosmetics are even better then the in game cosmetics. In ashes they will be equal quality, but different.
Cosmetics will be on par. I stand corrected.
Equitable cosmetics, both from a quantity and quality standpoint, are achievable through in-game means.[5] Cosmetics achievable in-game will be on-par, and in the case of legendary skins, even more elaborate than shop items.[6][7][2] https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Cosmetics
1
Options
Uncommon SenseMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
Technically you could purchase cosmetics with both options... Hypothetically
Say I bought a cosmetic (200e) with embers purchased with real world dollars ($10=300E)but now have 100E in change....
I can now with the option covert ingame gold* (1000G >100E) and have enough to purchase another cash shop item.
All that it being effected is players time input weather in Real life or ingame.
I proposed a 1 way conversion...(exchange was a poor choice of wording) is in absolutely no way P2W because you're in no way able to convert embers into ingame gold*.
Most people who have an issue to this I believe are feeling threatened that their cash shop cosmetics are now somehow invalidated...
And here I was thinking it was all about supporting the game developers and the player community.
As far as I can tell there is no negative impact to such a conversion. It all comes down to players (time) management and incentives.
Either way you are encouraging more subscribers who now have more options and access creating a healthier population...good
and for players with other life commitments or better financial positions to obtain even more cosmetic store items and have even more people to show it too because there are now more active subscribed players...good
I'm sorry if you cannot comprehend the 1 way conversion or are to self centered to actually care about the longterm health of the game we all want to play.
0
Options
Uncommon SenseMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
So I understand people want to be able to earn cash-shop cosmetics with in-game gold, but Intrepid can't keep the lights on, the payroll flowing, the servers going, and everything else they need to do with in-game gold. If that was the case they could just generate as much as they wanted.
Part of the value of a cash shop cosmetic is that you paid "real world cash" for it.
Given that Intrepid is dedicated to making sure there are a lot of in-game obtainable cosmetics, the people who can't afford more than the $15 sub will have more than enough time-sinks to keep them occupied.
As far as the cash-shop cosmetics, those are there to give Intrepid the revenue they need to keep the game going.
No one suggested removing the ability to pay cash for cash shop items.
all I'm suggesting is the ability to convert ingame currency into embers at a conversion rate deemed acceptable by intrepid to not undermine validity of either option.
What Embers can do is up to Intrepid....
They could have made cash shop cosmetics direct $ purchases, but they didn't....so ask yourself Jahlon why is that?
Embers are thing and I am proposing 1 positive reason to have them. There is no negative reason why such a conversion wouldn't have a overall positive outcome.
If you think there would be a profit loss I would disagree...
I think there would be more subscriber incentive in a net profit increase. Which means a more stable funded development platform.
Like I originally said, such a 1 way conversion would end the cash shop/subscriber debate/issue.
0
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
But why?
As others have said. Why would Intrepid change to this? It is not like they can keep the lights on with in game gold. As as people have gotten away from the idea. Intrepid is still a company and they need to make money. Developers( the people working for Intrepid) still need to be paid. I am sure they would like to eat as well.
So the big question is why would they hamstring their own financial standing?
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
They could have made cash shop cosmetics direct $ purchases, but they didn't....so ask yourself Jahlon why is that?
But they have. I own a ton of cosmetics and paid straight cash for them. The plan is to not do that after release, and have Embers instead. The reason for that is easy... If you force people to buy Embers in particular quantities, then you will quite frequently buy an amount of Embers more than you actually need for a particular cosmetic. That means you will have extra Embers sitting around doing nothing. When a new cosmetic comes out that appeals to you, there's an extra incentive to get it. Here, let's use some hypothetical numbers again to show you how this works.
This is from the Wiki, I'm not sure if it's official or an estimate or fan-made or what, but since it's all hypothetical, let's just use this:
So say there is a mount skin you want. It looks like a winged bear. It costs 2,500 Embers.
You buy the $24.99 package which gives you 2,750 Embers. You buy the winged bear, awesome, you have 250 Embers left over.
Then a couple of months later there is a belt skin that costs 750 Embers. You really like it. You already have 250 Embers, so you rationalize, hey that thing really just costs 500 Embers to me, so you spend $9.99 and get 1,000 Embers and buy it. You have 500 left over.
Then the next month there is a pet that looks like a squirrel made of steel with glowing runes. It looks really cool. It costs 1,250 Embers. Since you have 500 Embers banked, you only have to spend another $9.99 to get it, and you feel like you got a good value on that. Oh, and you'll still have 250 Embers left over that can contribute to the next cosmetic that catches your eye...
Intrepid has $44.97 of your money, and you continue to feel compelled to buy more so that the Embers you have don't go to waste. There are many games that use this kind of premium currency system to get people to keep buying microtransactions. It's sales psychology.
Embers are thing and I am proposing 1 positive reason to have them. There is no negative reason why such a conversion wouldn't have a overall positive outcome.
If you think there would be a profit loss I would disagree...
I think there would be more subscriber incentive in a net profit increase. Which means a more stable funded development platform.
No, there is a very strong negative reason such a conversion would be a bad idea. Either Intrepid will make it cheap enough that it devalues the cash shop, or so expensive that people think it gouges them. They won't win with it. It's a bad idea.
I disagree strongly that there would be more subscriber incentive. I guarantee you that you will not get a single subscription from a single player based on the idea of being able to get cosmetics from the shop using in-game currency.
Like I originally said, such a 1 way conversion would end the cash shop/subscriber debate/issue.
So I understand people want to be able to earn cash-shop cosmetics with in-game gold, but Intrepid can't keep the lights on, the payroll flowing, the servers going, and everything else they need to do with in-game gold. If that was the case they could just generate as much as they wanted.
Part of the value of a cash shop cosmetic is that you paid "real world cash" for it.
Given that Intrepid is dedicated to making sure there are a lot of in-game obtainable cosmetics, the people who can't afford more than the $15 sub will have more than enough time-sinks to keep them occupied.
As far as the cash-shop cosmetics, those are there to give Intrepid the revenue they need to keep the game going.
They could have made cash shop cosmetics direct $ purchases, but they didn't....so ask yourself Jahlon why is that?
I mean, from a financial perspective, one of the reasons Embers might be a thing is so they can charge people more for cosmetics by making people buy 2 separate Ember packs like a lot of companies do.
For example, if a Costume is 3000 embers at launch and the closest pack to that amount is only worth 2800 embers then that means you'd need to buy both the 2800 pack and another ember pack to get to the 3000 ember mark to buy the costume.
It's seen as a "scummy" way to sell stuff, but tons of companies do it so I wouldn't be surprised to see Intrepid do it.
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.
The cosmetics in the shop are purely cosmetic and do not affect characters' performance or progression.
Regardless of how you get a cosmetic, IT CAN'T HELP YOU WIN.
So your definition has been soured by the drugs you're taking.
You've not been paying attention.
The person that ended up with the cosmetic did not pay to win. They neither paid, nor won.
The person that bought embers with money, and then sold those embers to the other player in order to buy a cosmetic (or just traded the cosmetic) paid to win. They paid real money, and in return received in game gold. Since we were talking about the ability to exchange embers in the post you quoted, that is where the issue is.
Since gold in Ashes absolutely is progression (the game will likely have a near infinite gear progression path that is gold reliant), this absolutely is pay to win.
If you think it is not, then perhaps it is you that has been soured by the drugs you are taking. Or perhaps you were just mistaken.
I'm sorry if you cannot comprehend the 1 way conversion or are to self centered to actually care about the longterm health of the game we all want to play.
Brother what are you squawking at me for? I'm around 7-800 dollars deep on this game, having bought my original 500 dollar Alpha 1 package, couple other random skins, and the 5 dollar skin every month since I bought Alpha 1.
This is the single weirdest thread I've ever been involved in lol. All I was doing was responding to people who were defending actual p2w, and one person, Atama, who because of the sequence of posts, appeared to me to be defending p2w, but was not. (Which was strange to me because I already knew Atama was anti p2w.)
As far as the idea in the OP's post, it's not a horrible idea, and we could see something similar to it in the game one day. Or not, just depends on the business conditions of the game going forward and Steven's decisions. But right now I just don't see them making RMT cosmetic skins obtainable with in game currency when the game will already have in game obtainable cosmetics.
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
The cosmetics in the shop are purely cosmetic and do not affect characters' performance or progression.
Regardless of how you get a cosmetic, IT CAN'T HELP YOU WIN.
So your definition has been soured by the drugs you're taking.
You've not been paying attention.
The person that ended up with the cosmetic did not pay to win. They neither paid, nor won.
The person that bought embers with money, and then sold those embers to the other player in order to buy a cosmetic (or just traded the cosmetic) paid to win. They paid real money, and in return received in game gold. Since we were talking about the ability to exchange embers in the post you quoted, that is where the issue is.
@Noaani, as has been said to you repeatedly in this thread, you can’t trade Embers or cosmetic store items. The OP never advocated changing that. Are you posting drunk?!
To clarify this is not a 2 way exchange. $--->Embers (cosmetics)<---game currency.[/quote]
I like this. though I want to bring to light that under no circumstances should Embers or cosmetic cash shop items be able to be gifted or traded between players. Your idea is good, if Intrepid weren't planning it already I expect they will see it's worth.
Noaani, as has been said to you repeatedly in this thread, you can’t trade Embers or cosmetic store items. The OP never advocated changing that. Are you posting drunk?!
Yes, I know, which is why I have been asking repeatedly for a reason as to why Intrepid should forgo income to make this happen.
However, even if I was incorrect about the OP's proposal (the combination of the OP and title of the tread are written horribly), I am not going to let people run with the misguided opinion that being able to buy and sell cosmetics for in game currency is not pay to win - which is what I was doing in the post you quoted.
So again - asking anyone at all that cares, why should Intrepid forgo the revenue they will lose if this is added to the game, and/or how will they make that revenue back?
I'm not the only person asking this question - yet no one is answering it.
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.
The cosmetics in the shop are purely cosmetic and do not affect characters' performance or progression.
Regardless of how you get a cosmetic, IT CAN'T HELP YOU WIN.
So your definition has been soured by the drugs you're taking.
You've not been paying attention.
The person that ended up with the cosmetic did not pay to win. They neither paid, nor won.
The person that bought embers with money, and then sold those embers to the other player in order to buy a cosmetic (or just traded the cosmetic) paid to win. They paid real money, and in return received in game gold. Since we were talking about the ability to exchange embers in the post you quoted, that is where the issue is.
Since gold in Ashes absolutely is progression (the game will likely have a near infinite gear progression path that is gold reliant), this absolutely is pay to win.
If you think it is not, then perhaps it is you that has been soured by the drugs you are taking. Or perhaps you were just mistaken.
I understand your PoV and it seems to lean on these two fallacies:
1 - embers can be traded
2 - cosmetic shop items can be traded
Your argument doesn't withstand these facts, so it seems you haven't been paying attention. Or did I misunderstand your position?
Hugs and kisses
1
Options
Uncommon SenseMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Well a moderator gave me a warning and removed my last post with no specific reason other than a blanket
hate speech/toxicity copy and paste, which I don't believe I violated by the way.
I believe I've made my point clear. The net benefit of such an 1 way conversion has no detrimental effect.
the pros far outweigh the cons.
Nobody is stopping you from purchasing Embers with $ and all I'm suggesting is that maybe after 1000's of hours of in game play might be able to supplement or obtain an Ember cosmetic acquisition through a long-term dedicated subscription.
I believe I've made my point clear. The net benefit of such an 1 way conversion has no detrimental effect.
@Uncommon Sense
Sorry, could you point me to where you addressed the fact that Intrepid would make less revenue from the cash shop?
This is the big downside, and I have seen no actual points made to answer it.
Many people like myself that only want one or two cosmetics a year will simply not need to spend money to get them with your idea, cutting Intrepids revenue.
Others will perhaps buy many more cosmetics than that, but will gain embers in game as they play, meaning they need to purchase fewer in order to get the cosmetics they want.
How is Intrepid going to make up this loss in revenue, in your mind?
I mean, this is a really big detrimental effect, yet you claim it has no detrimental effects.
Right I am sorry but I skipped the second page because I didn’t want to lose my train of thought.
Now earning cosmetics through in game means doesn’t effect the market too badly imo. Every moba I’ve played has had it and I still managed to spend my real money on cosmetics just fine.
Gold to embers is a bad idea, it just is. I believe in mobas its alright because it rewards time played,(end of each game) I think it’s even healthy for companies to reward their less financially capable players with a chance at the cosmetics shop.
Now time played in ashes isn’t exactly easy to measure.. so some ideas I will put forward here for embers to be rewarded are; (amount isn’t relevant atm because it’s just an idea)
- successful caravan trip
- Getting embers for node level up contribution %
- successful node siege attack and/or defence.
- Successful castle siege attack and/or defence.
- Successful bounty hunt.
- Adding something to the library.
- Guild war victory (potential exploiting so maybe)
- Being elected Mayor (same as above)
- Tutoring success (same as above)
- Something for the crafting professions.
Theses are all just thoughts guys. Don’t get hung up on individual ideas. (I know who you are)
Obviously embers rewards would have to be very small in order to not devalue the cosmetics shop.
TLDR: It’s doable imo (not with gold) but balancing it would be the hard part.
0
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Several people keep bringing daily or login reward systems up as a way to "award" embers.
There were several long discussions around this and the community gave a resounding no with a few exceptions. It was so overwhelming to the no column they chose to stay away from it for all the right reasons.
Right I am sorry but I skipped the second page because I didn’t want to lose my train of thought.
Now earning cosmetics through in game means doesn’t effect the market too badly imo. Every moba I’ve played has had it and I still managed to spend my real money on cosmetics just fine.
Gold to embers is a bad idea, it just is. I believe in mobas its alright because it rewards time played,(end of each game) I think it’s even healthy for companies to reward their less financially capable players with a chance at the cosmetics shop.
Now time played in ashes isn’t exactly easy to measure.. so some ideas I will put forward here for embers to be rewarded are; (amount isn’t relevant atm because it’s just an idea)
- successful caravan trip
- Getting embers for node level up contribution %
- successful node siege attack and/or defence.
- Successful castle siege attack and/or defence.
- Successful bounty hunt.
- Adding something to the library.
- Guild war victory (potential exploiting so maybe)
- Being elected Mayor (same as above)
- Tutoring success (same as above)
- Something for the crafting professions.
Theses are all just thoughts guys. Don’t get hung up on individual ideas. (I know who you are)
Obviously embers rewards would have to be very small in order to not devalue the cosmetics shop.
TLDR: It’s doable imo (not with gold) but balancing it would be the hard part.
Will we be submitting bank statements so IS can determine a 'less financially capable' player?
No participation awards. In-game cosmetics will be on par with Shop cosmetics. If you can't pay, you can't play.
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.
My fault ... I could have explained better.
I would propose a slightly different setup than @Uncommon Sense.
Player #1 would only be able to buy items with Embers in the cash shop on behalf of Player #2.
Player #2 pays Player #1 in-game gold or other in-game currency.
There would be no conversion of Embers to increase gold/in-game currency for either Player #1 or Player #2 ... it would only be a gold transfer from Player #2 to Player #1.
That way, there would be no pay-to-win since the cash shop itself has no pay-to-win items.
However, it would increase revenues out of the cash shop ... since players would be aware that they could "gift" cosmetic items in return for in-game gold (or other currency).
0
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
There will be no gifting of store items. https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Cosmetic_store
All cosmetic store items will be non-tradeable.[7] There will be no gifting mechanism for cosmetic items.[8]
I don't want cosmetic items that can be purchased from the market to be transferable... because it is in a way a transfer of money for potentially something in-game.[8] – Steven Sharif
I agree with this stance.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
That way, there would be no pay-to-win since the cash shop itself has no pay-to-win items.
/puts on riot gear
that's p2w...
Yeah, it totally is P2W, you are correct.
Player 1 is buying in-game gold with cash. It’s legalized gold selling. Buying Embers with cash, trading them to another player for gold, then spending that gold on better gear in the game is very blatant P2W.
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.
No it's not. Pay to win means you pay money to have a power advantage over other players. Cosmetics by definition are the antithesis of that. Spending money on cosmetics is not pay to win, buying in game cosmetics is not pay to win, cosmetics are not pay to win. Cosmetics are not pay to win. Cosmetics are not pat to win. COMSETICS are not pay to win.
"one or made for the sake of appearance: such as
a: correcting defects especially of the face
cosmetic surgery
b: DECORATIVE, ORNAMENTAL
c: not substantive : SUPERFICIAL
cosmetic changes"
c: not substantive : SUPERFICIAL
c: not substantive : SUPERFICIAL
c: not substantive : SUPERFICIAL
c: not substantive : SUPERFICIAL
c: not substantive : SUPERFICIAL
c: not substantive : SUPERFICIAL
c: not substantive : SUPERFICIAL
Comments
Part of the value of a cash shop cosmetic is that you paid "real world cash" for it.
Given that Intrepid is dedicated to making sure there are a lot of in-game obtainable cosmetics, the people who can't afford more than the $15 sub will have more than enough time-sinks to keep them occupied.
As far as the cash-shop cosmetics, those are there to give Intrepid the revenue they need to keep the game going.
You probably can't see it because you don't understand what the cosmetic shop is.
"buy an epic sword off the shop" -- WHAT are you talking about? The Cosmetic Shop has Cosmetics, not weapons nor gear nor potions nor boosters.
Further, cosmetics can't be traded, nor can embers. Your whole post is filled with untruths.
Also the purchased cosmetics will not be on par with in-game cosmetics, they are BENEATH in-game cosmetics.
The cosmetics in the shop are purely cosmetic and do not affect characters' performance or progression.
Regardless of how you get a cosmetic, IT CAN'T HELP YOU WIN.
So your definition has been soured by the drugs you're taking.
The Cosmetic Shop is primarily a revenue source for the developer and I want them to flourish, so on this ground I would be opposed to this idea.
Man you must not have even read my comment. I was just stating a example of what definitive Pay to win is. It was obvious, I even said which will NOT be a option in AoC OF COURSE. Yes I agree the cosmetic shop only has cosmetics, but IF its possible to trade them that can translate into pay to win IF you could trade the cosmetics. Again I never said it will be in the game and I can pretty much guarantee will NOT be possible. Purchased cosmetics WILL be on par with in game cosmetics. They aren't going to sell cosmetics beneath in game cosmetics. That would be stupid. In most games the in shop cosmetics are even better then the in game cosmetics. In ashes they will be equal quality, but different.
Some things are not going to change. Cosmetic shop will be there and in-game gold to ember conversion wont be there cuz if that were possible people would just farm gold and trade that for real world money. Those who dont get "how" even after all these comments on just how it will undermine the principles of AoC just think of it as magic cuz it is beyond your comprehension then.
AoC isn't being built for convenience but immersion.
Move on and stop bringing attention to this pointless post.
Cosmetics will be on par. I stand corrected.
Equitable cosmetics, both from a quantity and quality standpoint, are achievable through in-game means.[5] Cosmetics achievable in-game will be on-par, and in the case of legendary skins, even more elaborate than shop items.[6][7][2] https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Cosmetics
Technically you could purchase cosmetics with both options...
Hypothetically
Say I bought a cosmetic (200e) with embers purchased with real world dollars ($10=300E)but now have 100E in change....
I can now with the option covert ingame gold* (1000G >100E) and have enough to purchase another cash shop item.
All that it being effected is players time input weather in Real life or ingame.
I proposed a 1 way conversion...(exchange was a poor choice of wording) is in absolutely no way P2W because you're in no way able to convert embers into ingame gold*.
Most people who have an issue to this I believe are feeling threatened that their cash shop cosmetics are now somehow invalidated...
And here I was thinking it was all about supporting the game developers and the player community.
As far as I can tell there is no negative impact to such a conversion. It all comes down to players (time) management and incentives.
Either way you are encouraging more subscribers who now have more options and access creating a healthier population...good
and for players with other life commitments or better financial positions to obtain even more cosmetic store items and have even more people to show it too because there are now more active subscribed players...good
I'm sorry if you cannot comprehend the 1 way conversion or are to self centered to actually care about the longterm health of the game we all want to play.
No one suggested removing the ability to pay cash for cash shop items.
all I'm suggesting is the ability to convert ingame currency into embers at a conversion rate deemed acceptable by intrepid to not undermine validity of either option.
What Embers can do is up to Intrepid....
They could have made cash shop cosmetics direct $ purchases, but they didn't....so ask yourself Jahlon why is that?
Embers are thing and I am proposing 1 positive reason to have them. There is no negative reason why such a conversion wouldn't have a overall positive outcome.
If you think there would be a profit loss I would disagree...
I think there would be more subscriber incentive in a net profit increase. Which means a more stable funded development platform.
Like I originally said, such a 1 way conversion would end the cash shop/subscriber debate/issue.
As others have said. Why would Intrepid change to this? It is not like they can keep the lights on with in game gold. As as people have gotten away from the idea. Intrepid is still a company and they need to make money. Developers( the people working for Intrepid) still need to be paid. I am sure they would like to eat as well.
So the big question is why would they hamstring their own financial standing?
This is from the Wiki, I'm not sure if it's official or an estimate or fan-made or what, but since it's all hypothetical, let's just use this:
So say there is a mount skin you want. It looks like a winged bear. It costs 2,500 Embers.
You buy the $24.99 package which gives you 2,750 Embers. You buy the winged bear, awesome, you have 250 Embers left over.
Then a couple of months later there is a belt skin that costs 750 Embers. You really like it. You already have 250 Embers, so you rationalize, hey that thing really just costs 500 Embers to me, so you spend $9.99 and get 1,000 Embers and buy it. You have 500 left over.
Then the next month there is a pet that looks like a squirrel made of steel with glowing runes. It looks really cool. It costs 1,250 Embers. Since you have 500 Embers banked, you only have to spend another $9.99 to get it, and you feel like you got a good value on that. Oh, and you'll still have 250 Embers left over that can contribute to the next cosmetic that catches your eye...
Intrepid has $44.97 of your money, and you continue to feel compelled to buy more so that the Embers you have don't go to waste. There are many games that use this kind of premium currency system to get people to keep buying microtransactions. It's sales psychology.
No, there is a very strong negative reason such a conversion would be a bad idea. Either Intrepid will make it cheap enough that it devalues the cash shop, or so expensive that people think it gouges them. They won't win with it. It's a bad idea.
I disagree strongly that there would be more subscriber incentive. I guarantee you that you will not get a single subscription from a single player based on the idea of being able to get cosmetics from the shop using in-game currency.
What debate/issue?!
I mean, from a financial perspective, one of the reasons Embers might be a thing is so they can charge people more for cosmetics by making people buy 2 separate Ember packs like a lot of companies do.
For example, if a Costume is 3000 embers at launch and the closest pack to that amount is only worth 2800 embers then that means you'd need to buy both the 2800 pack and another ember pack to get to the 3000 ember mark to buy the costume.
It's seen as a "scummy" way to sell stuff, but tons of companies do it so I wouldn't be surprised to see Intrepid do it.
You've not been paying attention.
The person that ended up with the cosmetic did not pay to win. They neither paid, nor won.
The person that bought embers with money, and then sold those embers to the other player in order to buy a cosmetic (or just traded the cosmetic) paid to win. They paid real money, and in return received in game gold. Since we were talking about the ability to exchange embers in the post you quoted, that is where the issue is.
Since gold in Ashes absolutely is progression (the game will likely have a near infinite gear progression path that is gold reliant), this absolutely is pay to win.
If you think it is not, then perhaps it is you that has been soured by the drugs you are taking. Or perhaps you were just mistaken.
Brother what are you squawking at me for? I'm around 7-800 dollars deep on this game, having bought my original 500 dollar Alpha 1 package, couple other random skins, and the 5 dollar skin every month since I bought Alpha 1.
This is the single weirdest thread I've ever been involved in lol. All I was doing was responding to people who were defending actual p2w, and one person, Atama, who because of the sequence of posts, appeared to me to be defending p2w, but was not. (Which was strange to me because I already knew Atama was anti p2w.)
As far as the idea in the OP's post, it's not a horrible idea, and we could see something similar to it in the game one day. Or not, just depends on the business conditions of the game going forward and Steven's decisions. But right now I just don't see them making RMT cosmetic skins obtainable with in game currency when the game will already have in game obtainable cosmetics.
@Noaani, as has been said to you repeatedly in this thread, you can’t trade Embers or cosmetic store items. The OP never advocated changing that. Are you posting drunk?!
To clarify this is not a 2 way exchange. $--->Embers (cosmetics)<---game currency.[/quote]
I like this. though I want to bring to light that under no circumstances should Embers or cosmetic cash shop items be able to be gifted or traded between players. Your idea is good, if Intrepid weren't planning it already I expect they will see it's worth.
Yes, I know, which is why I have been asking repeatedly for a reason as to why Intrepid should forgo income to make this happen.
However, even if I was incorrect about the OP's proposal (the combination of the OP and title of the tread are written horribly), I am not going to let people run with the misguided opinion that being able to buy and sell cosmetics for in game currency is not pay to win - which is what I was doing in the post you quoted.
So again - asking anyone at all that cares, why should Intrepid forgo the revenue they will lose if this is added to the game, and/or how will they make that revenue back?
I'm not the only person asking this question - yet no one is answering it.
I understand your PoV and it seems to lean on these two fallacies:
1 - embers can be traded
2 - cosmetic shop items can be traded
However:
1 - Only three ways to obtain Embers, none of which are trading/buying from players
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Embers
2 - "All cosmetic store items will be non-tradeable.[7] There will be no gifting mechanism for cosmetic items.[8]"
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Cosmetic_store
Your argument doesn't withstand these facts, so it seems you haven't been paying attention. Or did I misunderstand your position?
Hugs and kisses
hate speech/toxicity copy and paste, which I don't believe I violated by the way.
I believe I've made my point clear. The net benefit of such an 1 way conversion has no detrimental effect.
the pros far outweigh the cons.
Nobody is stopping you from purchasing Embers with $ and all I'm suggesting is that maybe after 1000's of hours of in game play might be able to supplement or obtain an Ember cosmetic acquisition through a long-term dedicated subscription.
Sorry, could you point me to where you addressed the fact that Intrepid would make less revenue from the cash shop?
This is the big downside, and I have seen no actual points made to answer it.
Many people like myself that only want one or two cosmetics a year will simply not need to spend money to get them with your idea, cutting Intrepids revenue.
Others will perhaps buy many more cosmetics than that, but will gain embers in game as they play, meaning they need to purchase fewer in order to get the cosmetics they want.
How is Intrepid going to make up this loss in revenue, in your mind?
I mean, this is a really big detrimental effect, yet you claim it has no detrimental effects.
Now earning cosmetics through in game means doesn’t effect the market too badly imo. Every moba I’ve played has had it and I still managed to spend my real money on cosmetics just fine.
Gold to embers is a bad idea, it just is. I believe in mobas its alright because it rewards time played,(end of each game) I think it’s even healthy for companies to reward their less financially capable players with a chance at the cosmetics shop.
Now time played in ashes isn’t exactly easy to measure.. so some ideas I will put forward here for embers to be rewarded are; (amount isn’t relevant atm because it’s just an idea)
- successful caravan trip
- Getting embers for node level up contribution %
- successful node siege attack and/or defence.
- Successful castle siege attack and/or defence.
- Successful bounty hunt.
- Adding something to the library.
- Guild war victory (potential exploiting so maybe)
- Being elected Mayor (same as above)
- Tutoring success (same as above)
- Something for the crafting professions.
Theses are all just thoughts guys. Don’t get hung up on individual ideas. (I know who you are)
Obviously embers rewards would have to be very small in order to not devalue the cosmetics shop.
TLDR: It’s doable imo (not with gold) but balancing it would be the hard part.
There were several long discussions around this and the community gave a resounding no with a few exceptions. It was so overwhelming to the no column they chose to stay away from it for all the right reasons.
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/48009/dev-discussion-26-login-rewards/p1
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/33123/i-agree-with-steven-daily-quests-log-in-rewards-often-become-chores
and many many more.
Will we be submitting bank statements so IS can determine a 'less financially capable' player?
No participation awards. In-game cosmetics will be on par with Shop cosmetics. If you can't pay, you can't play.
My fault ... I could have explained better.
I would propose a slightly different setup than @Uncommon Sense.
Player #1 would only be able to buy items with Embers in the cash shop on behalf of Player #2.
Player #2 pays Player #1 in-game gold or other in-game currency.
There would be no conversion of Embers to increase gold/in-game currency for either Player #1 or Player #2 ... it would only be a gold transfer from Player #2 to Player #1.
That way, there would be no pay-to-win since the cash shop itself has no pay-to-win items.
However, it would increase revenues out of the cash shop ... since players would be aware that they could "gift" cosmetic items in return for in-game gold (or other currency).
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Cosmetic_store
All cosmetic store items will be non-tradeable.[7] There will be no gifting mechanism for cosmetic items.[8]
I don't want cosmetic items that can be purchased from the market to be transferable... because it is in a way a transfer of money for potentially something in-game.[8] – Steven Sharif
I agree with this stance.
/puts on riot gear
that's p2w...
Yeah, it totally is P2W, you are correct.
Player 1 is buying in-game gold with cash. It’s legalized gold selling. Buying Embers with cash, trading them to another player for gold, then spending that gold on better gear in the game is very blatant P2W.
No it's not. Pay to win means you pay money to have a power advantage over other players. Cosmetics by definition are the antithesis of that. Spending money on cosmetics is not pay to win, buying in game cosmetics is not pay to win, cosmetics are not pay to win. Cosmetics are not pay to win. Cosmetics are not pat to win. COMSETICS are not pay to win.
"one or made for the sake of appearance: such as
a: correcting defects especially of the face
cosmetic surgery
b: DECORATIVE, ORNAMENTAL
c: not substantive : SUPERFICIAL
cosmetic changes"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cosmetic
c: not substantive : SUPERFICIAL
c: not substantive : SUPERFICIAL
c: not substantive : SUPERFICIAL
c: not substantive : SUPERFICIAL
c: not substantive : SUPERFICIAL
c: not substantive : SUPERFICIAL
c: not substantive : SUPERFICIAL