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
So, I'm explaining this for the third time in this thread - you really should read a thread to see if the point you are making has been made and refuted before posting it.
If I buy a cosmetic item for money in a game, that is not pay to win. If it were, the cash shop as it stands now would be pay to win.
If I am able to buy cosmetics for someone else, using my money, that IS pay to win.
It isn't the person that I am buying the cosmetics for that is paying to win, it is me. I am able to purchase those cosmetic items for them, and they give me gold in exchange.
Thus, I spend real money, and in return I get in game gold.
In game gold is not superficial in terms of an MMO like Ashes. In game gold is real character progress.
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).
This is indeed 100% pay to win. It isn't some grey area, or controversial to consider this pay to win.
Player #1 uses real money and ends up with in game gold. How can that be anything other than pay to win?
Sure, player #2 may only end up with cosmetics in exchange for their gold, but this isn't about them.
1
Options
Uncommon SenseMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
So many contradictions of people seeming unable to grasp the concept of a 1 way conversion.
Firstly and just so we're all on the same page a cosmetic can never be pay to win correct?...ok
Secondly Intrepid has introduced a intermediary currency token (Embers) as part of their cosmetic only cash shop payment model. There are many implications of this system which can be elaborated on in another discussion post.
I expressed 1 positive potential use for the Ember currency as a way to allow any discrepancies or residual issues concerning the introduction of a cash shop in a subscription to play MMO with the general MMO player base.
Some players typically express that they don't have time to play long term so would like to pay and support* the game development but purchasing cosmetic items...fine you have that option. Because somehow these players feel left out that the other players who have more time to play make progress...
Some players would like to be rewarded for their time and have long term goals within game to focus on and give their dedicated subscriptions s greater motivation and sense of value...fine those goal incentives have been developed, But they feel that content in the store could have been implemented in game and better utilized to enrich the environment creating more goals and adding more value to the subscription model. So there are some players that may have been interested in playing Ashes but won't because they are 100% anti cash shop...
So what is really being implicated here (by this proposed suggested use) is the respect of players time.
Having a 1 way conversion into Embers is in now way p2w so stop trying to find some convoluted work around.
If you're trying to suggest the a player would purchase gold from another player to then convert in to embers rather than just purchase the embers direct from Intrepid at vastly better conversion ratio then I don't this topic is for you.
If you don't like the in game gold to embers suggestion the what if Embers are earnable directly in game? What if they we're login rewards?
Like I said the implementation of the Embers system has many implications....
Personally I can't see the problem of having a 1 way conversion. There are many benefits to having a currency sink and economic drive motivational tool that would basically resolve any issues with the cashshop/subscription model and mostly likely encourage are larger healthier player base.
So many contradictions of people seeming unable to grasp the concept of a 1 way conversion.
Firstly and just so we're all on the same page a cosmetic can never be pay to win correct?...ok
Secondly Intrepid has introduced a intermediary currency token (Embers) as part of their cosmetic only cash shop payment model. There are many implications of this system which can be elaborated on in another discussion post.
I expressed 1 positive potential use for the Ember currency as a way to allow any discrepancies or residual issues concerning the introduction of a cash shop in a subscription to play MMO with the general MMO player base.
Some players typically express that they don't have time to play long term so would like to pay and support* the game development but purchasing cosmetic items...fine you have that option. Because somehow these players feel left out that the other players who have more time to play make progress...
Some players would like to be rewarded for their time and have long term goals within game to focus on and give their dedicated subscriptions s greater motivation and sense of value...fine those goal incentives have been developed, But they feel that content in the store could have been implemented in game and better utilized to enrich the environment creating more goals and adding more value to the subscription model. So there are some players that may have been interested in playing Ashes but won't because they are 100% anti cash shop...
So what is really being implicated here (by this proposed suggested use) is the respect of players time.
Having a 1 way conversion into Embers is in now way p2w so stop trying to find some convoluted work around.
If you're trying to suggest the a player would purchase gold from another player to then convert in to embers rather than just purchase the embers direct from Intrepid at vastly better conversion ratio then I don't this topic is for you.
If you don't like the in game gold to embers suggestion the what if Embers are earnable directly in game? What if they we're login rewards?
Like I said the implementation of the Embers system has many implications....
Personally I can't see the problem of having a 1 way conversion. There are many benefits to having a currency sink and economic drive motivational tool that would basically resolve any issues with the cashshop/subscription model and mostly likely encourage are larger healthier player base.
And we all want that, no?
Login rewards were shot down as a cheap gimmick to get people to login, used by weak companies because their product is to weak to get customers to login to consume the product on it's own merit.
Why should any company cut off a potential revenue stream?
If the base product is good the customers will be there. Offering free handouts as an excuse to get people to login would hamper the population numbers. How many other games out there do the login reward and the players login collect the daily/weekly reward and then log back out?
Maybe you think Intrepid should pay their employees with in game cosmetics like some other company was caught doing. Using in game currency created by the company to buy a companies product is a sure way to have a failed company. No money in leads to bad end results for all of us.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
1) No login rewards.
2) Embers should not be transferable between players, as well as anything you can buy for them.
3) Buying embers for in-game gold is under question, but it surely can be implemented in such a way so that the sky isn't gonna fall.
If you can't earn embers through gameplay then I hope cosmetics are cheaper with embers unless we will only be able to buy with embers after the launch. If you can still pay direct when the game goes live I don't see the point in embers if the cost and expense remains equal. It will be interesting to see how the systems are implemented.
I don't mind the idea of a gold sink through ember purchases but I don't think ember purchases should be tradable much like the current iterations. I don't think embers should be tradable either and last I heard you can't trade embers at present. I don't see cosmetics as pay to win or embers as pay to win if they are statless and rather superficial. I'd much rather buy cosmetics direct and save the gold for actual legendary items and a freehold or something (who knows what opportunities will arise).
Noani, I think you should be able to buy any gear for real money. You do not agree?
BuT wHeRe iS iNtRePiD gOiNg tO mAkE uP tHe LoSt ReVeNuE?
1, you spelt my name wrong. You didn't even get the right number of letters.
2, what?
Are you suggesting that you don't agree with the obvious notion that if players can earn embers in game, those same players will spend less money buying embers?
Are you suggesting that you don't agree with the obvious notion that if players can earn embers in game, those same players will spend less money buying embers?
I agree with it completely. The golden rule of game-making they call it. "At no point should the company make any decision that would hinder their income."
Thus we should not be able to spend in-game currency to buy embers. And for the same reason selling lvl-boosts for dollars is a great idea.
I think we have no disagreement, my good sir Noaani.
Personally I think this is fine so long as Embers aren’t tradable between players. If they’re tradable it turns into buying gold with real currency. I always support earnable currencies for otherwise cash-exclusive items.
0
Options
RokoMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I don't think Intrepid will hinder their own revenue stream for such a small benefit to players.
0
Options
VmanGmanMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If we accept this as truth, then there will still be no pay to win if you can trade game money for Embers.
You seem to be forgetting that gold is progression in Ashes.
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.
@Noaani You could buy embers with gold straight from the shop without ever making a transaction with another player. If you pay gold to the shop and just get some embers for it, there is no p2w. You’re assuming that the transaction happens between two players. There is an option where only one player and the shop are involved.
Great idea! I think I would be okay with a cash shop if I could buy the items with in game currency, too! This would solve a lot of issues I and players like me have with the cash shop if the cosmetics offered can be achieved through the game.
Don't listen to shills that say "why would Intrepid cut their revenue stream?!" They speak as if they work for Intrepid rather than being just a consumer of their products.
Also, that makes no sense that it cuts into revenue stream. The cash shop is apparently only ever going to be an optional service with solely "non pay to win" cosmetics. So, those who just want to pay with real money could do it anyway. This would just open more opportunity for people to 1. engage with the cash shop often and 2. play their game longer to achieve those cosmetics possibly providing more months of subscription fees every time more cosmetics are released.
It just gives another incentive for players to playthe game and more to do!
Noaani You could buy embers with gold straight from the shop without ever making a transaction with another player. If you pay gold to the shop and just get some embers for it, there is no p2w. You’re assuming that the transaction happens between two players. There is an option where only one player and the shop are involved.
Edit: word
There are a few different ideas that have been thrown around this thread, each of them with their own drawbacks.
If you could buy embers with in game gold, it reduces the revenue Intrepid are able to gain from that cash shop.
If we are to assume that the subscription itself is not enough to maintain and add to the game, then we should not assume any addition that reduces the cash shop income is a viable option.
0
Options
VmanGmanMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Noaani You could buy embers with gold straight from the shop without ever making a transaction with another player. If you pay gold to the shop and just get some embers for it, there is no p2w. You’re assuming that the transaction happens between two players. There is an option where only one player and the shop are involved.
Edit: word
There are a few different ideas that have been thrown around this thread, each of them with their own drawbacks.
If you could buy embers with in game gold, it reduces the revenue Intrepid are able to gain from that cash shop.
If we are to assume that the subscription itself is not enough to maintain and add to the game, then we should not assume any addition that reduces the cash shop income is a viable option.
Sure, but I’m just pointing out that being able to buy embers with gold doesn’t have to mean p2w like you had suggested.
Don't listen to shills that say "why would Intrepid cut their revenue stream?!" They speak as if they work for Intrepid rather than being just a consumer of their products.
No. We (or at least I) talk as if I have run our own businesses in the past, as well as run businesses for others in the past, and fully understand that you will not be successful in any industry if you literally give customers the option to not pay for your product - which is what the suggestion here is.
The idea was the following: let's add money to the revenue stream, and thus add to the potential quality of the game, but let's make everything you can buy there cosmetic, so that to not simultaneously destroy it. No one was saying: "Oh jees, I don't think we will have enough money with that subscription thing, no way. We will need something else. I've tried going around the neighborhood selling AOC-themed cookies, but I don't think that will do. Cosmetic cash-shop it is then, boys. But that revenue better not be cut down by some in-game gold trickery! Or no expansions, you know." (c) Steven Sharif
It was probably more along the lines of:
"I want to incentivize purchase in the cosmetic shop for sustainability of what expansions we have intended, since we are not a box cost." (c) Actually Steven Sharif
I don't even know what you mean by "not enough to maintain and add". Intrepid will maintain and add to it's game even if it will end up having 10000 players with no cash-shop. It will just take longer for the expansions to come out.
*I am a very cool buisnessman bla-bla-bla*
you will not be successful in any industry if you literally give customers the option to not pay for your product - which is what the suggestion here is.
Which is what the suggestion here is not. You pay for the game when you buy the subscription.
If the cash shop is never P2W, then no matter how you purchase an item from the cash shop it is also never P2W.
The easiest way to eliminate the in game currency from being impacted by the shop currency is to make everything involved untradeable.
I think there are creative ways to thread the two revenue streams together to build value resulting in greater net revenue collection than by simply keeping the two streams mutually exclusive.
It’s at least worth exploring.
0
Options
VmanGmanMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If the cash shop is never P2W, then no matter how you purchase an item from the cash shop it is also never P2W.
The easiest way to eliminate the in game currency from being impacted by the shop currency is to make everything involved untradeable.
I think there are creative ways to thread the two revenue streams together to build value resulting in greater net revenue collection than by simply keeping the two streams mutually exclusive.
It’s at least worth exploring.
Everything from the cash shop is already untradeable. Problem solved!
Everything from the cash shop is already untradeable. Problem solved!
Yes and you would need to make embers or anything connecting in game experience to cash shop items also untradeable (not just the end items purchased) to keep it a closed system.
Even if account-bound embers were an alternative way to purchase the cosmetic shop items there would probably be a "carry-trade" work-around, no different than exp "carries". Just pay gold to a carry group and get the embers thru whatever the ingame methods are. I like the initiative of the various carry groups (scrolls/armor/skins) in other games and don't see why that won't happen within this game as well. It feels like cheating in the spirit of fair play but it's not actually against any rules of conduct (that I know of unless RL cash is involved). Since the cos play shop has no PTW items this is just another method for the players to get some extras (assuming the whole ember thing even materializes).
Comments
So, I'm explaining this for the third time in this thread - you really should read a thread to see if the point you are making has been made and refuted before posting it.
If I buy a cosmetic item for money in a game, that is not pay to win. If it were, the cash shop as it stands now would be pay to win.
If I am able to buy cosmetics for someone else, using my money, that IS pay to win.
It isn't the person that I am buying the cosmetics for that is paying to win, it is me. I am able to purchase those cosmetic items for them, and they give me gold in exchange.
Thus, I spend real money, and in return I get in game gold.
In game gold is not superficial in terms of an MMO like Ashes. In game gold is real character progress.
This is indeed 100% pay to win. It isn't some grey area, or controversial to consider this pay to win.
Player #1 uses real money and ends up with in game gold. How can that be anything other than pay to win?
Sure, player #2 may only end up with cosmetics in exchange for their gold, but this isn't about them.
Firstly and just so we're all on the same page a cosmetic can never be pay to win correct?...ok
Secondly Intrepid has introduced a intermediary currency token (Embers) as part of their cosmetic only cash shop payment model. There are many implications of this system which can be elaborated on in another discussion post.
I expressed 1 positive potential use for the Ember currency as a way to allow any discrepancies or residual issues concerning the introduction of a cash shop in a subscription to play MMO with the general MMO player base.
Some players typically express that they don't have time to play long term so would like to pay and support* the game development but purchasing cosmetic items...fine you have that option. Because somehow these players feel left out that the other players who have more time to play make progress...
Some players would like to be rewarded for their time and have long term goals within game to focus on and give their dedicated subscriptions s greater motivation and sense of value...fine those goal incentives have been developed, But they feel that content in the store could have been implemented in game and better utilized to enrich the environment creating more goals and adding more value to the subscription model. So there are some players that may have been interested in playing Ashes but won't because they are 100% anti cash shop...
So what is really being implicated here (by this proposed suggested use) is the respect of players time.
Having a 1 way conversion into Embers is in now way p2w so stop trying to find some convoluted work around.
If you're trying to suggest the a player would purchase gold from another player to then convert in to embers rather than just purchase the embers direct from Intrepid at vastly better conversion ratio then I don't this topic is for you.
If you don't like the in game gold to embers suggestion the what if Embers are earnable directly in game? What if they we're login rewards?
Like I said the implementation of the Embers system has many implications....
Personally I can't see the problem of having a 1 way conversion. There are many benefits to having a currency sink and economic drive motivational tool that would basically resolve any issues with the cashshop/subscription model and mostly likely encourage are larger healthier player base.
And we all want that, no?
Regardless of the smokescreens and doubletalk, PTW is PTW, If I understand what you are saying.
As our expert @Noaani said, "This is indeed 100% pay to win. It isn't some grey area, or controversial to consider this pay to win.
Player #1 uses real money and ends up with in game gold. How can that be anything other than pay to win?
Sure, player #2 may only end up with cosmetics in exchange for their gold, but this isn't about them."
I'm not hugely attached to the idea ... if players are fiercely opposed to it, I can roll with that.
Especially since Steven has a high threshold when it comes to outside forces on the game economy.
Login rewards were shot down as a cheap gimmick to get people to login, used by weak companies because their product is to weak to get customers to login to consume the product on it's own merit.
Why should any company cut off a potential revenue stream?
If the base product is good the customers will be there. Offering free handouts as an excuse to get people to login would hamper the population numbers. How many other games out there do the login reward and the players login collect the daily/weekly reward and then log back out?
Maybe you think Intrepid should pay their employees with in game cosmetics like some other company was caught doing. Using in game currency created by the company to buy a companies product is a sure way to have a failed company. No money in leads to bad end results for all of us.
1) No login rewards.
2) Embers should not be transferable between players, as well as anything you can buy for them.
3) Buying embers for in-game gold is under question, but it surely can be implemented in such a way so that the sky isn't gonna fall.
I personally would like no cosmetics at all...
I don't mind the idea of a gold sink through ember purchases but I don't think ember purchases should be tradable much like the current iterations. I don't think embers should be tradable either and last I heard you can't trade embers at present. I don't see cosmetics as pay to win or embers as pay to win if they are statless and rather superficial. I'd much rather buy cosmetics direct and save the gold for actual legendary items and a freehold or something (who knows what opportunities will arise).
Each to their own though.
BuT wHeRe iS iNtRePiD gOiNg tO mAkE uP tHe LoSt ReVeNuE?
1, you spelt my name wrong. You didn't even get the right number of letters.
2, what?
Are you suggesting that you don't agree with the obvious notion that if players can earn embers in game, those same players will spend less money buying embers?
I agree with it completely. The golden rule of game-making they call it. "At no point should the company make any decision that would hinder their income."
Thus we should not be able to spend in-game currency to buy embers. And for the same reason selling lvl-boosts for dollars is a great idea.
I think we have no disagreement, my good sir Noaani.
Right, you're one of those... people that think they are amusing.
Either you are an actual idiot (I assume not), or you are attempting sarcasm in text form. Sarcasm is text form doesn't come across, so don't bother.
Neither of the above two possibilities are anything I want to get in to a discussion with.
@Noaani You could buy embers with gold straight from the shop without ever making a transaction with another player. If you pay gold to the shop and just get some embers for it, there is no p2w. You’re assuming that the transaction happens between two players. There is an option where only one player and the shop are involved.
Edit: word
Don't listen to shills that say "why would Intrepid cut their revenue stream?!" They speak as if they work for Intrepid rather than being just a consumer of their products.
Also, that makes no sense that it cuts into revenue stream. The cash shop is apparently only ever going to be an optional service with solely "non pay to win" cosmetics. So, those who just want to pay with real money could do it anyway. This would just open more opportunity for people to 1. engage with the cash shop often and 2. play their game longer to achieve those cosmetics possibly providing more months of subscription fees every time more cosmetics are released.
It just gives another incentive for players to playthe game and more to do!
If you could buy embers with in game gold, it reduces the revenue Intrepid are able to gain from that cash shop.
If we are to assume that the subscription itself is not enough to maintain and add to the game, then we should not assume any addition that reduces the cash shop income is a viable option.
Sure, but I’m just pointing out that being able to buy embers with gold doesn’t have to mean p2w like you had suggested.
Who is assuming that and why?
We are all assuming that, because Steven has said as much.
The idea was the following: let's add money to the revenue stream, and thus add to the potential quality of the game, but let's make everything you can buy there cosmetic, so that to not simultaneously destroy it. No one was saying: "Oh jees, I don't think we will have enough money with that subscription thing, no way. We will need something else. I've tried going around the neighborhood selling AOC-themed cookies, but I don't think that will do. Cosmetic cash-shop it is then, boys. But that revenue better not be cut down by some in-game gold trickery! Or no expansions, you know." (c) Steven Sharif
It was probably more along the lines of:
"I want to incentivize purchase in the cosmetic shop for sustainability of what expansions we have intended, since we are not a box cost." (c) Actually Steven Sharif
I don't even know what you mean by "not enough to maintain and add". Intrepid will maintain and add to it's game even if it will end up having 10000 players with no cash-shop. It will just take longer for the expansions to come out.
Which is what the suggestion here is not. You pay for the game when you buy the subscription.
The easiest way to eliminate the in game currency from being impacted by the shop currency is to make everything involved untradeable.
I think there are creative ways to thread the two revenue streams together to build value resulting in greater net revenue collection than by simply keeping the two streams mutually exclusive.
It’s at least worth exploring.
Everything from the cash shop is already untradeable. Problem solved!
Yes and you would need to make embers or anything connecting in game experience to cash shop items also untradeable (not just the end items purchased) to keep it a closed system.