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.
Think about it this way, with an avenue to earn in game gems with gold, this could lead to players with a lot of time on their hands who are very skilled to, "sell carries." This is a hot topic right now in most MMOs, and I'm pretty sure I know where intrepid stands, but it certainly wouldn't help. this may seem like it wouldn't be pay to win, but it would at the end of the day lead to carries, which is certainly pay to win. And while I have the utmost faith that Intrepid can and will try to get rid of as much RMT as possible, I am also going to be realistic and say no MMO has ever been able to purely remove RMT.
As such, I have to disagree. I would never want to see gems purchased with gold.
Think about it this way, with an avenue to earn in game gems with gold, this could lead to players with a lot of time on their hands who are very skilled to, "sell carries." This is a hot topic right now in most MMOs, and I'm pretty sure I know where intrepid stands, but it certainly wouldn't help. this may seem like it wouldn't be pay to win, but it would at the end of the day lead to carries, which is certainly pay to win.
I’m not following - could you help me understand who’s winning, how are they winning, and what specifically is helping someone win?
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.
You ignore the second part of my post which is a common thing for you. Here it is.
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!
And okay don’t pretend like you aren’t a guy who spent $500+ on a promise “intrepid pack” with this game and feel “invested” because you have thousands of embers to spend on cash shop items. You don’t want your precious embers to be invalidated in any way you consider would make you feel less special for having them. Get over yourself.
Having multiple ways to achieve items in the cash shop is a good idea and would keep people playing longer which is a much more important revenue stream anyone with a product or business understands.
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.
Great you solved the issue. Make embers untradeable and this is a great idea! It’s really that simple. No you don’t have to make gold untradeable in this idea anymore so than without it. People will still farm gold, gold is still power in this game, and they can sell it and trade it for power “cheating the spirit of the game.” Good luck policing these people even without this idea.
I think it’s a wonderful idea to allow the cash shop items achieved through gold or another in game currency. Gives more to do in game and allows people to who otherwise wouldn’t interact with the cash shop more often.
0
Options
VmanGmanMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
Yes, that’s also already true. Problem solved!
0
Options
RepkarMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Think about it this way, with an avenue to earn in game gems with gold, this could lead to players with a lot of time on their hands who are very skilled to, "sell carries." This is a hot topic right now in most MMOs, and I'm pretty sure I know where intrepid stands, but it certainly wouldn't help. this may seem like it wouldn't be pay to win, but it would at the end of the day lead to carries, which is certainly pay to win.
I’m not following - could you help me understand who’s winning, how are they winning, and what specifically is helping someone win?
Alright, I will break this down.
Ok, let's first ask ourselves, what does a player typically mean by pay to win?
Typically Pay to win is what happens when a player uses currency to advance their character in any way, that requires some type of monetary transaction. I think we can all agree on this.
Now, the next question, which is the literal point of this entire post. Is buying embers with in-game currency Pay to win? No. It isn't. In no way can you advance your character in the game with anything off the shop.
But this issue goes way deeper than you realize. Because RMT from third parties will always exist in video games. And giving anyone the option to purchase shop items with in-game currency will only lead to RMT.
Let's look at the issues that World of Warcraft is facing currently. Right now, the game is rampant with, "carrying services." And Blizzard is having a hard time facing up against them, the only logical conclusion will be to blanket ban carrying services. (Which is bad for guilds or bidding runs in raid, or simple groups trying to make some extra cash.)
And Blizzard did this to themselves, out of greed they put the Token on the cash shop that players can use to purchase gold and others can buy the token with in-game gold and purchase game time/things off the store.
So, how is this pay to win? Because Blizzard isn't selling anything off the shop that advances a character in an unfair way.
The answer is communities that hide behind the guise of a regular player, RMT is cheaper in wow than buying the token that turns into money, so players buying carries will spend real money over buying the token.
But this wouldn't happen in Ashes..... is what I would assume your point would be. Because there is no token.
That is where you are wrong my friend. As long as there will be something a player can buy with gold over real world money there will be groups abusing it. The economy is simple, you have players who want to buy gold to buy carries, you have players who sell carries for gold who want to purchase shop items.
But there is a third group, you have players who want to sell carries to sell gold with RMT. And those people will hide behind the guise of, "just buying gems lol," while skimming 10% off the top and selling for real world money." Which has been proven over the past year with many interviews with RMT gold/account sellers.
No, purchasing gems with in-game gold is a bad, proven, red herring.
Yes, I have read your points, there are so many systems Intrepid could implement to try to block players from abusing the system. But I ask you, at what point is it worth it when you need 10 systems just to make sure purchasing gems with gold is possibly un-abuseable. What would you give up? Would you give up the ability to trade gold to other players? your alts? Would you fault an entire economy because you want a special looking horsey on the store?
It makes no sense to bring unapproved RMT into this conversation because that is always disallowed and yet no matter if suggestion is implemented or not, it will always exist. The reason people oppose tradable cash shop currencies is because it moves all the skeevy cash-to-gold transactions in-house. It implicitly tells customers that unsupported RMT is acceptable as long as it’s lining company pockets. That’s not what a system like this does.
Companies allowing their money-poor, time-rich players to access otherwise cash-only cosmetics is not an invitation of unsupported RMT. It’s a gift to their active players. It may take significantly more time and significantly more effort, but a player can earn their cosmetics through gameplay while they simply pay the monthly sub cost. Whether they’re earned via converting gold to Embers, or earning Embers directly through various ingame activities is up to the discretion of the developers. But neither of these tell customers that RMT is encouraged or acceptable.
Think about it this way, with an avenue to earn in game gems with gold…
Ah, here’s the nuance. I wouldn’t want a conversion in any way between embers and gold. My point would be exploring a way to earn non-tradeable embers, not implement a way to convert gold to embers.
Basic constraints:
- some form of embers could be earned in game
- Embers are bound to a player and cannot be traded
- At no point can gold be converted to embers, or embers to gold
- Any item purchased using embers are bound to the player and cannot be traded
Certainly you can still have ‘carries’ paid in gold, those will exist for all sorts of activities. None of those are Intrepid baking in pay to win.
Obviously, you can have P2W behavior outside the game’s boundaries - for example using Venmo to pay real currency for runs within the game, items, etc, but there’s only so much IS has the ability to control.
Totally respect your disagreement, but I’d like to make sure we’re disagreeing on an accurate articulation of our respective arguments.
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
Well, not in those exact words, no.
What they have said is the following
Because we are a non-box purchase game, meaning there is no box price to play Ashes of Creation, it is only a subscription; and that's beneficial because it reduces the barrier of entry and we want a high population obviously; but at the same time one of the ways we augment the revenue flows to sustain constant updates and new chapter releases and additional content within the game is through a cosmetic-only marketplace; and that means absolutely no pay-to-win whatsoever; and that will be adhered to forever.
So, yeah.
Less money earned from the cash shop OBVIOUSLY means less money for Intrepid to spend on additions to the game. Since they don't plan on charging us for those additions, I challenge you to argue that this is not the case.
So really, the argument for adding a means to buy embers with in game gold is really an argument for less post launch content for the game - because that is the result it will have.
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.
I didn't address it this time around because I have addressed it so many times in this thread and you have ignored it each and every time.
However, you are attempting to call me out on it now, you can't just ignore it this time, so I'll reply again.
Those who want to pay could still pay, but that is a smaller group than those who are willing to pay if it is the only option. The group of people willing to pay for an item that is only able to be obtained by purchasing it is also smaller than the group of people wanting to buy an item that can be obtained with gold - cash shop purchases cease to be a sign that you support Intrepid with this, so many people simply will not buy them as such.
Also, if the ability to earn embers in game is added in - as has been your suggestion this whole thread - then even those willing to pay would not need to pay as much, because they will have embers they have earned just sitting there.
The simple fact is, if embers are able to be obtained in game, Intrepid will make less money. If Intrepid make less money, that means less additional post launch content for the game.
The simple fact is, if embers are able to be obtained in game, Intrepid will make less money. If Intrepid make less money, that means less additional post launch content for the game.
Not necessarily. If there were a correlation between earned embers (still adhering to my constraints above) and player retention, this would would be a benefit to IS’s bottom line.
Again, what I think would be part of exploring this option would be calibrating the earn rate to be low enough as to not offset direct sales, but high enough to not be completely written off as unattainable. That’s a whole lot of gray to play with.
0
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Your assuming the reason people keep paying their sub is for the free stuff.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
Not necessarily. If there were a correlation between earned embers (still adhering to my constraints above) and player retention, this would would be a benefit to IS’s bottom line.
The thing is, with your suggestion, every single purchase ever made with embers would be supplemented with earned embers. It would be a drastic drop off in revenue for Intrepid.
As someone that would buy a cosmetic every 3 - 6 months at the most, adding a means to earn embers in game would mean I would never need to purchase them.
This means that the number of people that your suggestion would need to keep in the game specifically due to it existing is actually a very large number. When you look at the type of player you are talking about here, they need to meet the following parameters in a Venn diagram
Care so much about cosmetics that they will leave a game over them.
Care so little about cosmetics that they won't put any effort in game towards getting them.
Have so little money that they can't afford the occasional cosmetic.
Have enough money that they can always afford to pay their subscription.
Even though they don't care enough about cosmetics to earn them in game, they have to care enough about them to earn embers in game to buy cosmetics.
Now, if any of the above are not needed to fit the kind of thing you are talking about, please let me know. But to me, from what I can see, all five of the above would be needed.
Once the game is launched, and people see what cosmetics are available in game, I would be surprised if a single person fit in to the above description.
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.
I didn't address it this time around because I have addressed it so many times in this thread and you have ignored it each and every time.
However, you are attempting to call me out on it now, you can't just ignore it this time, so I'll reply again.
Those who want to pay could still pay, but that is a smaller group than those who are willing to pay if it is the only option. The group of people willing to pay for an item that is only able to be obtained by purchasing it is also smaller than the group of people wanting to buy an item that can be obtained with gold - cash shop purchases cease to be a sign that you support Intrepid with this, so many people simply will not buy them as such.
Also, if the ability to earn embers in game is added in - as has been your suggestion this whole thread - then even those willing to pay would not need to pay as much, because they will have embers they have earned just sitting there.
The simple fact is, if embers are able to be obtained in game, Intrepid will make less money. If Intrepid make less money, that means less additional post launch content for the game.
You ignored more:
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!
And okay don’t pretend like you aren’t a guy who spent $500+ on a promise “intrepid pack” with this game and feel “invested” because you have thousands of embers to spend on cash shop items. You don’t want your precious embers to be invalidated in any way you consider would make you feel less special for having them. Get over yourself.
Having multiple ways to achieve items in the cash shop is a good idea and would keep people playing longer which is a much more important revenue stream anyone with a product or business understands.
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!
Engaging in the cash shop isn't of any value to Intrepid.
Spending money on items in the cash shop is the objective.
The game itself should give players more than enough to do, and the proceeds from the cash shop that are spent on additional post launch content will facilitate that.
Your argument here seems to be that you would rather monotonous repeating tasks to earn embers over new actual content - because that is the tradeoff you are suggesting.
If you want to perform tasks to get cosmetics, the game has that for you. Why do you need a second system to achieve that same goal? Why would this keep people playing longer than the in game achievable cosmetics (that are by all accounts going to be better) would?
The simple fact is, if embers are able to be obtained in game, Intrepid will make less money. If Intrepid make less money, that means less additional post launch content for the game.
Engaging in the cash shop isn't of any value to Intrepid.
Spending money on items in the cash shop is the objective.
You speak as though you are an expert on this game, Steven's feelings and motives, and finances. Which you clearly are not or you'd be working for them and at Steven's mansion hanging out and not just another consumer on their forms.
You keep arguing about how important the extra revenue stream is to them and there is no other solution, yet when pay to win is brought up you cannot dare acknowledge the idea. So, you are saying that this game is enough of a passion project for Steven to not include the most profitable form of revenue in any mmo, pay to win, that is widely used. But, it's not enough of a passion project to consider other ideas that make players happy, like not limiting the cash shop to just big spenders? You assume he only cares about what you do, as in no pay to win and lots of revenue.
Do you really fail to see how Steven might want players to continue to play his game long term and achievable cash shop rewards are a great incentive to that? You ignore the fact that the bulk of revenue is going to come from subscriptions and that is the most important thing to continue.
You seem so clouded by, like I said, being a guy who spent $500+ on a promise “intrepid pack” with this game and feel “invested” because you have thousands of embers to spend on cash shop items. You don’t want your precious embers to be invalidated in any way you consider would make you feel less special for having them.
You speak as though you are an expert on this game, Steven's feelings and motives, and finances. Which you clearly are not or you'd be working for them and at Steven's mansion hanging out and not just another consumer on their forms.
Quite the opposite.
I am simply repeating what Intrepid have said.
Steven has said outright that the revenue from the cash shop is needed to maintain the game and continue adding new content. That is just how it is. Me repeating what he has said is not me being an expert, it is me assuming to not know better than the people that are.
You claiming to know better than Intrepid means you must think that you are the expert here.
@Noaani
You keep arguing about how important the extra revenue stream is to them and there is no other solution, yet when pay to win is brought up you cannot dare acknowledge the idea. So, you are saying that this game is enough of a passion project for Steven to not include the most profitable form of revenue in any mmo, pay to win, that is widely used. But, it's not enough of a passion project to consider other ideas that make players happy, like not limiting the cash shop to just big spenders? You assume he only cares about what you do, as in no pay to win and lots of revenue.
Do you really fail to see how Steven might want players to continue to play his game long term and achievable cash shop rewards are a great incentive to that? You ignore the fact that the bulk of revenue is going to come from subscriptions and that is the most important thing to continue.
Noaani
You keep arguing about how important the extra revenue stream is to them and there is no other solution, yet when pay to win is brought up you cannot dare acknowledge the idea. So, you are saying that this game is enough of a passion project for Steven to not include the most profitable form of revenue in any mmo, pay to win, that is widely used. But, it's not enough of a passion project to consider other ideas that make players happy, like not limiting the cash shop to just big spenders? You assume he only cares about what you do, as in no pay to win and lots of revenue.
Do you really fail to see how Steven might want players to continue to play his game long term and achievable cash shop rewards are a great incentive to that? You ignore the fact that the bulk of revenue is going to come from subscriptions and that is the most important thing to continue.
You are mistaken.
It is not me saying that Intrepid need the revenue from the cash shop to maintain the game and add post launch content - it is Intrepid saying that.
I am simply assuming that they know what they are talking about - as should you.
While Ashes may well be a passion project for Steven, passion doesn't pay the mortgages of his staff, or feed their children.
Ashes may be a passion project, but Intrepid is a private, for profit company. Steven expects a return on his 9 figure investment.
This is why I have been saying that in order for your suggestion to even be considered, you need to find a way to replace the money that absolutely will be lost.
You wouldn't expect Samsung to send you earbuds just because you use their phone a lot - but that is basically what you are asking Intrepid to do - you use the game as a primary product, they have accessories for that game, you want the accessories for free because you use the primary product.
Noaani
You keep arguing about how important the extra revenue stream is to them and there is no other solution, yet when pay to win is brought up you cannot dare acknowledge the idea. So, you are saying that this game is enough of a passion project for Steven to not include the most profitable form of revenue in any mmo, pay to win, that is widely used. But, it's not enough of a passion project to consider other ideas that make players happy, like not limiting the cash shop to just big spenders? You assume he only cares about what you do, as in no pay to win and lots of revenue.
Do you really fail to see how Steven might want players to continue to play his game long term and achievable cash shop rewards are a great incentive to that? You ignore the fact that the bulk of revenue is going to come from subscriptions and that is the most important thing to continue.
You are mistaken.
It is not me saying that Intrepid need the revenue from the cash shop to maintain the game and add post launch content - it is Intrepid saying that.
Okay, but there are other options that can be suggested on their open forums for suggestive feedback and you do not need to argue the logic of the idea with their finances, that is their job and you should leave it to the experts.
Allowing embers the be achievable does not remove the cash shop, I would argue it would have a direct influence on returning monthly subs, the major revenue source.
Also, it brings people into the cash shop, which yes, would have a direct influence on people buying more things. I might go into the cash shop to spend some embers I earned and see something I really want and go ahead and buy it, too. Otherwise, I'd probably never open the cash shop at all. That's why people give coupons, discounts, REWARDS TO MEMBERS, and free samples in any sort of business.
Allowing embers the be achievable does not remove the cash shop, I would argue it would have a direct influence on returning monthly subs, the major revenue source.
Cool, argue that.
Here is my answer to a previous poster that suggestion this - the people that would subscribe to a game with this that would not subscribe to the game game without this need to fit all five of the following.
Care so much about cosmetics that they will leave a game over them.
Care so little about cosmetics that they won't put any effort in game towards getting them.
Have so little money that they can't afford the occasional cosmetic.
Have enough money that they can always afford to pay their subscription.
Even though they don't care enough about cosmetics to earn them in game, they have to care enough about them to earn embers in game to buy cosmetics.
That creates a very small set of people - arguably one that doesn't actually exist as they need to both be willing to put in game effort in, and also not be willing to put in game effort in.
So, who are these people that would subscribe to the game with this but wouldn't subscribe without it, and who are numerous enough to make up the loss Intrepid would suffer on basically every cash shop purchase?
It is unlikely that you will not be aware of what is for sale on the cash shop - you will see people wearing it in game. So the idea that getting free embers will encourage people to go to the cash shop and see items they didn't know about is just inaccurate.
If Intrepid wanted to have some sort of rewards program (the community has already rejected any form of daily log in reward, saying that just making as good a game as you can is better), that is their call. However, that is not what is being asked for in this thread, and is not what I am arguing against.
Okay, but there are other options that can be suggested on their open forums for suggestive feedback and you do not need to argue the logic of the idea with their finances, that is their job and you should leave it to the experts.
Are you suggesting here that these forums are open and anyone is free to post ideas, but that the forums are not so open that we can't discuss the logic of those ideas?
the people that would subscribe to a game with this that would not subscribe to the game game without this need to fit all five of the following.
Care so much about cosmetics that they will leave a game over them.
Care so little about cosmetics that they won't put any effort in game towards getting them.
Have so little money that they can't afford the occasional cosmetic.
Have enough money that they can always afford to pay their subscription.
Even though they don't care enough about cosmetics to earn them in game, they have to care enough about them to earn embers in game to buy cosmetics.
Says who besides you? This is a very limited view on people who play mmos and doesn't really apply to what I said.
the people that would subscribe to a game with this that would not subscribe to the game game without this need to fit all five of the following.
Care so much about cosmetics that they will leave a game over them.
Care so little about cosmetics that they won't put any effort in game towards getting them.
Have so little money that they can't afford the occasional cosmetic.
Have enough money that they can always afford to pay their subscription.
Even though they don't care enough about cosmetics to earn them in game, they have to care enough about them to earn embers in game to buy cosmetics.
Says who besides you? This is a very limited view on people who play mmos and doesn't really apply to what I said.
I'm asking you, not telling you.
You are saying there are people that will subscribe to Ashes with a means to earn embers in game that would not subscribe to Ashes without that means.
I am trying to work out what it is that would motivate these people, and as far as I can see, all five of those conditions need to be met.
Which of them do you not think need to be met in order for someone to subscribe to Ashes with a means to earn embers in game that would not subscribe to Ashes without that means?
You are saying there are people that will subscribe to Ashes with a means to earn embers in game that would not subscribe to Ashes without that means.
Nope. It's just an incentive to keep subscribing regardless of the reason they might not and adds extra content to players. You cannot categorize all players into those groups so I cannot answer your question.
You are saying there are people that will subscribe to Ashes with a means to earn embers in game that would not subscribe to Ashes without that means.
Nope. It's just an incentive to keep subscribing regardless of the reason they might not and adds extra content to players. You cannot categorize all players into those groups so I cannot answer your question.
I don't think you understand what I am saying.
I am not giving you a list of groups that all players must fit in to, I am giving you a list of requirements that any one player must adhere to (as in, all must be present in that one player) in order for that player to want to sub to Ashes with your suggestion, but who won't sub without it.
I'll go over each of them to illustrate my point.
The first is that the player must care about cosmetics. If they do not, then obviously they will not care about any of this.
The second is that they must not care about cosmetics so much that they are willing to spend time to get them. If they were willing to spend time on cosmetics, the game already offers this for them, so they don't need this suggestion of yours.
The third is that they can't afford cosmetics. if they could afford them, they wouldn't be concerned with this at all.
The fourth is that they can afford the subscription. If they can't afford the subscription, they are obviously not going to subscribe, regardless of if this is present in the game or not.
The fifth is that they must be willing to put time and effort in to earning embers. If they aren't willing to put that time in, then this system is meaningless to them.
Now, going back to YOUR statement that there are players that will subscribe to the game with your suggestion that would not subscribe to the game without it (and enough of these to make up the lost revenue), which of the above five things do you think is not needed?
You do now seem to be somewhat backtracking, and are just saying that the ability to earn embers in game is just a reason to keep subscribing. Why would this be a reason to keep subscribing? If the game is good, people will subscribe, if it is not good, they will not subscribe. People aren't going to subscribe to a game that is not good just because they can earn cosmetics, and they aren't going to unsubscribe from a game just because they only have one means of earning cosmetics within the game as opposed to two methods.
@noanni
Honestly why are you arguing against allowing embers to be earned in game? I really cannot see why it affects you besides just that you don't want people to have access to embers through game mechanics because you had to pay for them.
As for revenue streams, there are plenty of options after the game is released, some that aren't even in game! For example, one being collectibles and toys. I think it's ridiculous you are so obsessed with the revenue of this game that isn't even out yet that you cannot even allow people to suggest ideas. As I said before, leave the arguing of this game's finances to the "experts."
I think it's ridiculous you are so obsessed with the revenue of this game that isn't even out yet that you cannot even allow people to suggest ideas.
Where have I stopped you suggesting ideas?
You had an idea, I pointed out the inherent flaws in it. I even then suggested you try and come up with a solution to those flaws.
What in that is me not allowing you to suggest ideas?
Ah correction, your need to point out "inherent flaws" in ideas that you deem would affect monetization when you do not have the knowledge of the company finances to accurately do so without making assumptions based on your limited information.
I think it's ridiculous you are so obsessed with the revenue of this game that isn't even out yet that you cannot even allow people to suggest ideas.
Where have I stopped you suggesting ideas?
You had an idea, I pointed out the inherent flaws in it. I even then suggested you try and come up with a solution to those flaws.
What in that is me not allowing you to suggest ideas?
Ah correction, your need to point out "inherent flaws" in ideas that you deem would affect monetization when you do not have the knowledge of the company finances to accurately do so without making assumptions based on your limited information.
You still don't get it.
I am not talking about my impression of Intrepid, I am talking about Intrepids impression of Intrepid.
If they say they need money from the cash shop to maintain the game and fund post launch content, neither you nor I have any room to doubt that - unless you think you have reason to know better.
I am the one here that knows my information is limited - you are the one that thinks you know better.
Comments
Think about it this way, with an avenue to earn in game gems with gold, this could lead to players with a lot of time on their hands who are very skilled to, "sell carries." This is a hot topic right now in most MMOs, and I'm pretty sure I know where intrepid stands, but it certainly wouldn't help. this may seem like it wouldn't be pay to win, but it would at the end of the day lead to carries, which is certainly pay to win. And while I have the utmost faith that Intrepid can and will try to get rid of as much RMT as possible, I am also going to be realistic and say no MMO has ever been able to purely remove RMT.
As such, I have to disagree. I would never want to see gems purchased with gold.
I’m not following - could you help me understand who’s winning, how are they winning, and what specifically is helping someone win?
You ignore the second part of my post which is a common thing for you. Here it is.
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!
And okay don’t pretend like you aren’t a guy who spent $500+ on a promise “intrepid pack” with this game and feel “invested” because you have thousands of embers to spend on cash shop items. You don’t want your precious embers to be invalidated in any way you consider would make you feel less special for having them. Get over yourself.
Having multiple ways to achieve items in the cash shop is a good idea and would keep people playing longer which is a much more important revenue stream anyone with a product or business understands.
Great you solved the issue. Make embers untradeable and this is a great idea! It’s really that simple. No you don’t have to make gold untradeable in this idea anymore so than without it. People will still farm gold, gold is still power in this game, and they can sell it and trade it for power “cheating the spirit of the game.” Good luck policing these people even without this idea.
I think it’s a wonderful idea to allow the cash shop items achieved through gold or another in game currency. Gives more to do in game and allows people to who otherwise wouldn’t interact with the cash shop more often.
Yes, that’s also already true. Problem solved!
Alright, I will break this down.
Ok, let's first ask ourselves, what does a player typically mean by pay to win?
Typically Pay to win is what happens when a player uses currency to advance their character in any way, that requires some type of monetary transaction. I think we can all agree on this.
Now, the next question, which is the literal point of this entire post. Is buying embers with in-game currency Pay to win? No. It isn't. In no way can you advance your character in the game with anything off the shop.
But this issue goes way deeper than you realize. Because RMT from third parties will always exist in video games. And giving anyone the option to purchase shop items with in-game currency will only lead to RMT.
Let's look at the issues that World of Warcraft is facing currently. Right now, the game is rampant with, "carrying services." And Blizzard is having a hard time facing up against them, the only logical conclusion will be to blanket ban carrying services. (Which is bad for guilds or bidding runs in raid, or simple groups trying to make some extra cash.)
And Blizzard did this to themselves, out of greed they put the Token on the cash shop that players can use to purchase gold and others can buy the token with in-game gold and purchase game time/things off the store.
So, how is this pay to win? Because Blizzard isn't selling anything off the shop that advances a character in an unfair way.
The answer is communities that hide behind the guise of a regular player, RMT is cheaper in wow than buying the token that turns into money, so players buying carries will spend real money over buying the token.
But this wouldn't happen in Ashes..... is what I would assume your point would be. Because there is no token.
That is where you are wrong my friend. As long as there will be something a player can buy with gold over real world money there will be groups abusing it. The economy is simple, you have players who want to buy gold to buy carries, you have players who sell carries for gold who want to purchase shop items.
But there is a third group, you have players who want to sell carries to sell gold with RMT. And those people will hide behind the guise of, "just buying gems lol," while skimming 10% off the top and selling for real world money." Which has been proven over the past year with many interviews with RMT gold/account sellers.
No, purchasing gems with in-game gold is a bad, proven, red herring.
Yes, I have read your points, there are so many systems Intrepid could implement to try to block players from abusing the system. But I ask you, at what point is it worth it when you need 10 systems just to make sure purchasing gems with gold is possibly un-abuseable. What would you give up? Would you give up the ability to trade gold to other players? your alts? Would you fault an entire economy because you want a special looking horsey on the store?
I stand by what I said, I disagree.
Companies allowing their money-poor, time-rich players to access otherwise cash-only cosmetics is not an invitation of unsupported RMT. It’s a gift to their active players. It may take significantly more time and significantly more effort, but a player can earn their cosmetics through gameplay while they simply pay the monthly sub cost. Whether they’re earned via converting gold to Embers, or earning Embers directly through various ingame activities is up to the discretion of the developers. But neither of these tell customers that RMT is encouraged or acceptable.
Ah, here’s the nuance. I wouldn’t want a conversion in any way between embers and gold. My point would be exploring a way to earn non-tradeable embers, not implement a way to convert gold to embers.
Basic constraints:
- some form of embers could be earned in game
- Embers are bound to a player and cannot be traded
- At no point can gold be converted to embers, or embers to gold
- Any item purchased using embers are bound to the player and cannot be traded
Certainly you can still have ‘carries’ paid in gold, those will exist for all sorts of activities. None of those are Intrepid baking in pay to win.
Obviously, you can have P2W behavior outside the game’s boundaries - for example using Venmo to pay real currency for runs within the game, items, etc, but there’s only so much IS has the ability to control.
Totally respect your disagreement, but I’d like to make sure we’re disagreeing on an accurate articulation of our respective arguments.
What they have said is the following So, yeah.
Less money earned from the cash shop OBVIOUSLY means less money for Intrepid to spend on additions to the game. Since they don't plan on charging us for those additions, I challenge you to argue that this is not the case.
So really, the argument for adding a means to buy embers with in game gold is really an argument for less post launch content for the game - because that is the result it will have.
However, you are attempting to call me out on it now, you can't just ignore it this time, so I'll reply again.
Those who want to pay could still pay, but that is a smaller group than those who are willing to pay if it is the only option. The group of people willing to pay for an item that is only able to be obtained by purchasing it is also smaller than the group of people wanting to buy an item that can be obtained with gold - cash shop purchases cease to be a sign that you support Intrepid with this, so many people simply will not buy them as such.
Also, if the ability to earn embers in game is added in - as has been your suggestion this whole thread - then even those willing to pay would not need to pay as much, because they will have embers they have earned just sitting there.
The simple fact is, if embers are able to be obtained in game, Intrepid will make less money. If Intrepid make less money, that means less additional post launch content for the game.
Not necessarily. If there were a correlation between earned embers (still adhering to my constraints above) and player retention, this would would be a benefit to IS’s bottom line.
Again, what I think would be part of exploring this option would be calibrating the earn rate to be low enough as to not offset direct sales, but high enough to not be completely written off as unattainable. That’s a whole lot of gray to play with.
No, I’m saying take an active role in exploring whether there is a connection there, then understand if it’s worthwhile to invest in that area.
By definition that’s not an assumption.
As someone that would buy a cosmetic every 3 - 6 months at the most, adding a means to earn embers in game would mean I would never need to purchase them.
This means that the number of people that your suggestion would need to keep in the game specifically due to it existing is actually a very large number. When you look at the type of player you are talking about here, they need to meet the following parameters in a Venn diagram
Care so much about cosmetics that they will leave a game over them.
Care so little about cosmetics that they won't put any effort in game towards getting them.
Have so little money that they can't afford the occasional cosmetic.
Have enough money that they can always afford to pay their subscription.
Even though they don't care enough about cosmetics to earn them in game, they have to care enough about them to earn embers in game to buy cosmetics.
Now, if any of the above are not needed to fit the kind of thing you are talking about, please let me know. But to me, from what I can see, all five of the above would be needed.
Once the game is launched, and people see what cosmetics are available in game, I would be surprised if a single person fit in to the above description.
You ignored more:
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!
And okay don’t pretend like you aren’t a guy who spent $500+ on a promise “intrepid pack” with this game and feel “invested” because you have thousands of embers to spend on cash shop items. You don’t want your precious embers to be invalidated in any way you consider would make you feel less special for having them. Get over yourself.
Having multiple ways to achieve items in the cash shop is a good idea and would keep people playing longer which is a much more important revenue stream anyone with a product or business understands.
Spending money on items in the cash shop is the objective.
The game itself should give players more than enough to do, and the proceeds from the cash shop that are spent on additional post launch content will facilitate that.
Your argument here seems to be that you would rather monotonous repeating tasks to earn embers over new actual content - because that is the tradeoff you are suggesting.
If you want to perform tasks to get cosmetics, the game has that for you. Why do you need a second system to achieve that same goal? Why would this keep people playing longer than the in game achievable cosmetics (that are by all accounts going to be better) would?
You speak as though you are an expert on this game, Steven's feelings and motives, and finances. Which you clearly are not or you'd be working for them and at Steven's mansion hanging out and not just another consumer on their forms.
You keep arguing about how important the extra revenue stream is to them and there is no other solution, yet when pay to win is brought up you cannot dare acknowledge the idea. So, you are saying that this game is enough of a passion project for Steven to not include the most profitable form of revenue in any mmo, pay to win, that is widely used. But, it's not enough of a passion project to consider other ideas that make players happy, like not limiting the cash shop to just big spenders? You assume he only cares about what you do, as in no pay to win and lots of revenue.
Do you really fail to see how Steven might want players to continue to play his game long term and achievable cash shop rewards are a great incentive to that? You ignore the fact that the bulk of revenue is going to come from subscriptions and that is the most important thing to continue.
You seem so clouded by, like I said, being a guy who spent $500+ on a promise “intrepid pack” with this game and feel “invested” because you have thousands of embers to spend on cash shop items. You don’t want your precious embers to be invalidated in any way you consider would make you feel less special for having them.
Quite the opposite.
I am simply repeating what Intrepid have said.
Steven has said outright that the revenue from the cash shop is needed to maintain the game and continue adding new content. That is just how it is. Me repeating what he has said is not me being an expert, it is me assuming to not know better than the people that are.
You claiming to know better than Intrepid means you must think that you are the expert here.
You keep arguing about how important the extra revenue stream is to them and there is no other solution, yet when pay to win is brought up you cannot dare acknowledge the idea. So, you are saying that this game is enough of a passion project for Steven to not include the most profitable form of revenue in any mmo, pay to win, that is widely used. But, it's not enough of a passion project to consider other ideas that make players happy, like not limiting the cash shop to just big spenders? You assume he only cares about what you do, as in no pay to win and lots of revenue.
Do you really fail to see how Steven might want players to continue to play his game long term and achievable cash shop rewards are a great incentive to that? You ignore the fact that the bulk of revenue is going to come from subscriptions and that is the most important thing to continue.
It is not me saying that Intrepid need the revenue from the cash shop to maintain the game and add post launch content - it is Intrepid saying that.
I am simply assuming that they know what they are talking about - as should you.
While Ashes may well be a passion project for Steven, passion doesn't pay the mortgages of his staff, or feed their children.
Ashes may be a passion project, but Intrepid is a private, for profit company. Steven expects a return on his 9 figure investment.
This is why I have been saying that in order for your suggestion to even be considered, you need to find a way to replace the money that absolutely will be lost.
You wouldn't expect Samsung to send you earbuds just because you use their phone a lot - but that is basically what you are asking Intrepid to do - you use the game as a primary product, they have accessories for that game, you want the accessories for free because you use the primary product.
Okay, but there are other options that can be suggested on their open forums for suggestive feedback and you do not need to argue the logic of the idea with their finances, that is their job and you should leave it to the experts.
Allowing embers the be achievable does not remove the cash shop, I would argue it would have a direct influence on returning monthly subs, the major revenue source.
Also, it brings people into the cash shop, which yes, would have a direct influence on people buying more things. I might go into the cash shop to spend some embers I earned and see something I really want and go ahead and buy it, too. Otherwise, I'd probably never open the cash shop at all. That's why people give coupons, discounts, REWARDS TO MEMBERS, and free samples in any sort of business.
Here is my answer to a previous poster that suggestion this - the people that would subscribe to a game with this that would not subscribe to the game game without this need to fit all five of the following.
Care so much about cosmetics that they will leave a game over them.
Care so little about cosmetics that they won't put any effort in game towards getting them.
Have so little money that they can't afford the occasional cosmetic.
Have enough money that they can always afford to pay their subscription.
Even though they don't care enough about cosmetics to earn them in game, they have to care enough about them to earn embers in game to buy cosmetics.
That creates a very small set of people - arguably one that doesn't actually exist as they need to both be willing to put in game effort in, and also not be willing to put in game effort in.
So, who are these people that would subscribe to the game with this but wouldn't subscribe without it, and who are numerous enough to make up the loss Intrepid would suffer on basically every cash shop purchase?
It is unlikely that you will not be aware of what is for sale on the cash shop - you will see people wearing it in game. So the idea that getting free embers will encourage people to go to the cash shop and see items they didn't know about is just inaccurate.
If Intrepid wanted to have some sort of rewards program (the community has already rejected any form of daily log in reward, saying that just making as good a game as you can is better), that is their call. However, that is not what is being asked for in this thread, and is not what I am arguing against.
Are you suggesting here that these forums are open and anyone is free to post ideas, but that the forums are not so open that we can't discuss the logic of those ideas?
Says who besides you? This is a very limited view on people who play mmos and doesn't really apply to what I said.
I'm asking you, not telling you.
You are saying there are people that will subscribe to Ashes with a means to earn embers in game that would not subscribe to Ashes without that means.
I am trying to work out what it is that would motivate these people, and as far as I can see, all five of those conditions need to be met.
Which of them do you not think need to be met in order for someone to subscribe to Ashes with a means to earn embers in game that would not subscribe to Ashes without that means?
Nope. It's just an incentive to keep subscribing regardless of the reason they might not and adds extra content to players. You cannot categorize all players into those groups so I cannot answer your question.
I don't think you understand what I am saying.
I am not giving you a list of groups that all players must fit in to, I am giving you a list of requirements that any one player must adhere to (as in, all must be present in that one player) in order for that player to want to sub to Ashes with your suggestion, but who won't sub without it.
I'll go over each of them to illustrate my point.
The first is that the player must care about cosmetics. If they do not, then obviously they will not care about any of this.
The second is that they must not care about cosmetics so much that they are willing to spend time to get them. If they were willing to spend time on cosmetics, the game already offers this for them, so they don't need this suggestion of yours.
The third is that they can't afford cosmetics. if they could afford them, they wouldn't be concerned with this at all.
The fourth is that they can afford the subscription. If they can't afford the subscription, they are obviously not going to subscribe, regardless of if this is present in the game or not.
The fifth is that they must be willing to put time and effort in to earning embers. If they aren't willing to put that time in, then this system is meaningless to them.
Now, going back to YOUR statement that there are players that will subscribe to the game with your suggestion that would not subscribe to the game without it (and enough of these to make up the lost revenue), which of the above five things do you think is not needed?
You do now seem to be somewhat backtracking, and are just saying that the ability to earn embers in game is just a reason to keep subscribing. Why would this be a reason to keep subscribing? If the game is good, people will subscribe, if it is not good, they will not subscribe. People aren't going to subscribe to a game that is not good just because they can earn cosmetics, and they aren't going to unsubscribe from a game just because they only have one means of earning cosmetics within the game as opposed to two methods.
Honestly why are you arguing against allowing embers to be earned in game? I really cannot see why it affects you besides just that you don't want people to have access to embers through game mechanics because you had to pay for them.
As for revenue streams, there are plenty of options after the game is released, some that aren't even in game! For example, one being collectibles and toys. I think it's ridiculous you are so obsessed with the revenue of this game that isn't even out yet that you cannot even allow people to suggest ideas. As I said before, leave the arguing of this game's finances to the "experts."
Where have I stopped you suggesting ideas?
You had an idea, I pointed out the inherent flaws in it. I even then suggested you try and come up with a solution to those flaws.
What in that is me not allowing you to suggest ideas?
Ah correction, your need to point out "inherent flaws" in ideas that you deem would affect monetization when you do not have the knowledge of the company finances to accurately do so without making assumptions based on your limited information.
You still don't get it.
I am not talking about my impression of Intrepid, I am talking about Intrepids impression of Intrepid.
If they say they need money from the cash shop to maintain the game and fund post launch content, neither you nor I have any room to doubt that - unless you think you have reason to know better.
I am the one here that knows my information is limited - you are the one that thinks you know better.