Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!

For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.

You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.

Sub price, cosmetic shop and alternative rules server.

VindorVindor Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
I mean i was paying 15$ a month + box 20 years ago, considering inflation and no box cost i wouldnt mind paying 30 or 40$ a month to play in a world without cosmetic shop.

Could Intrepid possibly offer servers with no cosmetic shop for an additonal fee ?
xewgyjsccgbs.gif
«1

Comments

  • NO.
    "Suffer in silence"
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    I agree that they could charge more for the game. With inflation the way it has been over the last 6 months, they may well need to increase the price before the game is released (I've suggested they could/should increase the price for a few years now).

    The notion of a server with a different ruleset - any different ruleset - has been completely shut down by Steven. They have no interest at all in that. I personally would happily pay more to play on a server with no cosmetics at all - but that is simply not going to happen.
  • CawwCaww Member, Alpha Two
    Sylvanar wrote: »
    NO.

    Ditto...

    I still don't understand the dislike of a cos-play shop - don't use it.
  • unknownsystemerrorunknownsystemerror Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    "Welcome to McDonalds. May I help you?"

    Yeah, I know you have been selling BigMacs for decades pretty cheap. I would be willing to pay double or triple the price if you would just get rid of those Happy Meals. Even though I don't have any kids, I feel they are wrong. I see children playing with the toys happily, and I realize, they have no control over their desires. We must protect the chilluns! Their small, tiny brains cause them to want things that I believe have no value or fun. So, please stop selling Happy Meals.

    "Thank you sir, come again. If you do not want to order, I suggest going down the street to Arby's. Sure, the food tastes like shit, but they don't have Happy Meals. Enjoy!"
    south-park-rabble-rabble-rabbl-53b58d315aa49.jpg
  • VeeshanVeeshan Member, Alpha Two
    Caww wrote: »
    Sylvanar wrote: »
    NO.

    Ditto...

    I still don't understand the dislike of a cos-play shop - don't use it.

    some people have no self control and buy absolutely everything they see i guess.
  • VindorVindor Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I guess most people here wouldnt choose to play on this kind of server, pretty sure i am not the only one bothered by cosmetics shop and i wonder howmany would choose to do it.
    xewgyjsccgbs.gif
  • OkeydokeOkeydoke Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I would pay more to play on a server with no cash shop. But that's just me. And you. And Noaani. And more I'm sure. But we're in the minority. Games have to compete with other games, they have to appeal to masses.

    This monetization model of free or cheap to play/cash shop(p2w or not) appeals to masses. Hopefully it will die out one day. But that would require some pretty massive shifts in thinking and intelligence in the customer base. Don't hold your breath.

    In the meantime, it's not really a big deal. While I would pay more to play on a non cash shop server, I agree with Intrepid's decision not to implement that. Segmenting the player base would be the bigger evil.
  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    I just find it interesting that years before a massively multiplayer game is out, part of the community wants to wall themselves off from the others.
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • RevengeRomanRevengeRoman Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Honestly I don't see benefit to having servers without the cash shop. From IS perspective, they would be actively devaluing one of they're two monetization methods by preventing their use for part of the community. They would also have to fund additional cost of setting up servers specifically for those players.

    I recognize there might be a few people who would pay extra for this as a service, but it boils down to the same reason they haven't developed the game for Console, Mac, or Linux. Not enough people are interested. I would love a Linux build. I hate Windows and if it weren't for Ashes and a couple other games I'd never use Windows again if I could help it. But that's not feasible right now, and so I am stuck.

    Maybe one day down the road Linux or another Operating System other than Windows will become viable for gaming. Maybe one day there will be enough interest in separate rule set servers, or launching separate servers and maintaining them will become dirt cheap. Who knows? Ashes will have a long, ever changing history, and I can't wait to see where it and Intrepid Studios go.
  • Taleof2CitiesTaleof2Cities Member, Alpha Two
    Vindor wrote: »
    I guess most people here wouldnt choose to play on this kind of server, pretty sure i am not the only one bothered by cosmetics shop and i wonder howmany would choose to do it.

    There are many other threads on this topic, @Vindor, if you just do a simple forums search.

    Almost of all them explain why this is a bad idea.

    TL;DR: Cosmetics are totally optional ... there's no obligation on your part to participate. That's why there's no box cost for Ashes.
  • HumblePuffinHumblePuffin Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Do people who don’t want a cosmetic cash shop not want it because they dont want to see the cosmetics? Or is it just the fact it exists?

    If it’s just the fact it exists I feel the most logical conclusion is just don’t use it as others suggested, and enjoy the fact that whales make your gaming experience cheaper.

    If it’s that many games produce super gaudy cosmetic options, then shouldn’t the argument be for cosmetic items that aren’t gaudy and then enjoy the fact that whales make your gaming experience cheaper?
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Do people who don’t want a cosmetic cash shop not want it because they dont want to see the cosmetics? Or is it just the fact it exists?
    For me, it is the fact that I can't tell what you are wearing by just looking at your character.

    Even if I can't tell the exact weapon or armor pieces you have on, I feel I should be able to look at your character and know if you are going to attack me with a two handed sword, or a bow and arrow. I should know if you are wearing plate armor or a robe.

    Cosmetics prevent me from being able to tell this.

    Being as that may, Steven has said no alternative ruleset servers. So, no alternative ruleset servers.
  • MybroViajeroMybroViajero Member, Alpha Two
    "Welcome to McDonalds. May I help you?"

    Yeah, I know you have been selling BigMacs for decades pretty cheap. I would be willing to pay double or triple the price if you would just get rid of those Happy Meals. Even though I don't have any kids, I feel they are wrong. I see children playing with the toys happily, and I realize, they have no control over their desires. We must protect the chilluns! Their small, tiny brains cause them to want things that I believe have no value or fun. So, please stop selling Happy Meals.

    "Thank you sir, come again. If you do not want to order, I suggest going down the street to Arby's. Sure, the food tastes like shit, but they don't have Happy Meals. Enjoy!"

    lTJ7n08.gif
    EDym4eg.png
  • I will approximate the dollars to pounds - but I can't think of any equivalent game subscription going to upwards of £30pm that is absolutely insane. Maybe mr moneybags here might be happy to pay for it, but the vast majority don't want to have to pay £360 a year to play this game, as opposed to the £120 we will be looking at roughly right now. Given that it's only cosmetics, you will get people that might buy out the shop but most people will just buy one here or there. I'd hate to have to pay 2x the subscription or more essentially as a cost for not having the cosmetic cash shop, which really isn't a big a deal as people are making out.
  • SylvanarSylvanar Member
    edited April 2022
    Noaani wrote: »
    Threat evaluation is directly tied to the cosmetic shop
    All your points from the first post on this thread has been transmog related and none have anything to do with cosmetic shop and can be easily resolved with a simple limitation that gear can only be transmogged into the same type of gear. Like axe into axe, cloth into cloth, etc. Which I would like to be there regardless.

    You want to threat assess 10 people at the same time without hovering your mouse over them. There are so many issues with this, its not even funny. Now imagine a horde of people come in front of you:
    - You are looking at their description and not at what they are doing.
    - There is a flood of information which not even 1% of players are equipped to process in the required timeframe.
    - You want the information bubble to overlap or not? Overlap then you cant read description of people standing side by side. Not overlap then your screen is filled with information bubbles. So there are gonna be complaints either way.
    - Imagine going into a village or metropolis which would be packed with players.

    To be honest I dont see the point of this "threat assessment" of 10 people coming at me BECAUSE if 10 people are coming at me and I am alone then all I would have is time to click on them and look at stuff as I would be dead. On the contrary, if you are hidden then you have ample time to threat assess them by clicking on them.

    Lastly, you can say that this feature should be toggleable. But then AoC is open world PvP, you would have to choose to keep it on or off all the time for it to serve its intended purpose except when in metropolis/village.

    PS: Plate/cloth doesnt matter as much. Why? As AoC isnt going to balance 1v1 then lets say Rogues have inherent advantage against Bards. So I see 2-3 people coming at me and one of them is a bard, I jump on them irrespective of gear. Why not spend 10 seconds to threat assess? Initiative gives advantage. As it is already 1 vs many, I would like to have that advantage on my side.
    I personally think it should just be on all name plates.
    Its called nameplate and not character description for a reason. I hope it does with it is titled as.
    "Suffer in silence"
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Sylvanar wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Threat evaluation is directly tied to the cosmetic shop
    All your points from the first post on this thread has been transmog related and none have anything to do with cosmetic shop and can be easily resolved with a simple limitation that gear can only be transmogged into the same type of gear. Like axe into axe, cloth into cloth, etc. Which I would like to be there regardless.
    I agree.

    However, Steven has already outright said no to that.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    However, Steven has already outright said no to that.
    Well this is disappointing. I didn't know that.
    "Suffer in silence"
  • HumblePuffinHumblePuffin Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited April 2022
    Edit: I went right back to identification. I’ll moderate my comment myself over to the other thread.
  • AtamaAtama Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Sylvanar wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Threat evaluation is directly tied to the cosmetic shop
    All your points from the first post on this thread has been transmog related and none have anything to do with cosmetic shop and can be easily resolved with a simple limitation that gear can only be transmogged into the same type of gear. Like axe into axe, cloth into cloth, etc. Which I would like to be there regardless.
    I agree.

    However, Steven has already outright said no to that.

    Are we sure that is the case for skins? I know that costumes will cover up anything and have no restrictions. But skins are reliant on the kind of item you apply it to. If you have a skin for a gliding mount, for example, and you try to put it on a horse, it won't work because that skin is for a different mount tier. Steven certainly implies that skins will be reliant on the kind of item you apply it to:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY6HW-tcVG8&t=2503s

    He's not saying explicitly that cloth skins can only go on cloth items, and so on. But there seems to be an implication of that. Do you have a more definitive statement from Steven to share about this?

    (Again, excluding costumes, which we know will just cover up anything else you have regardless of what it is, though costumes don't affect weapons.)
     
    Hhak63P.png
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Atama wrote: »
    Are we sure that is the case for skins?
    We don't yet know how skins will work, so it may not be the case for them.

    However, skins are (as far as I can see) mostly to be found in game, while costumes are to be found on the store. As such, it is the costume aspect of cosmetics that are the issue here.
  • AtamaAtama Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Atama wrote: »
    Are we sure that is the case for skins?
    We don't yet know how skins will work, so it may not be the case for them.

    However, skins are (as far as I can see) mostly to be found in game, while costumes are to be found on the store. As such, it is the costume aspect of cosmetics that are the issue here.

    That's just untrue. Every month, there is one costume and one skin for sale. There are the same number of costumes as there are skins.

    For example, this month we have the Badland Scavenger Handwraps, which is a glove skin, and the Desolation Outlander costume. I've bought more skins than costumes from the shop, because I like the idea of piecing a unique appearance together from different cosmetic pieces than getting one costume covering my body. (Though I do have a few costumes that I thought looked really cool.)
     
    Hhak63P.png
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Atama wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Atama wrote: »
    Are we sure that is the case for skins?
    We don't yet know how skins will work, so it may not be the case for them.

    However, skins are (as far as I can see) mostly to be found in game, while costumes are to be found on the store. As such, it is the costume aspect of cosmetics that are the issue here.

    That's just untrue. Every month, there is one costume and one skin for sale. There are the same number of costumes as there are skins.

    For example, this month we have the Badland Scavenger Handwraps, which is a glove skin, and the Desolation Outlander costume. I've bought more skins than costumes from the shop, because I like the idea of piecing a unique appearance together from different cosmetic pieces than getting one costume covering my body. (Though I do have a few costumes that I thought looked really cool.)
    I said mostly, and also as far as I can see.

    Intrepid have stated that costumes (note; costumes, not cosmetics) are available from the store - and have not said they are available in game. They have also talked about the flexibility of in game cosmetics over store bought costumes, and how in game cosmetics can be mixed and matched while store bought are all or nothing.

    What is up for sale now is unlikely to be an exact representation of what will be on the store when the game launches.

    The only way to interpret what Intrepid have said that I can see, is that when the game launches, you will be able to find individual slot cosmetics in game, and buy costumes that cover all slots from the store. While there may be the occasional situation that breaks this rule, this does seem to be what they are generally aiming at.

    If you have a different interpretation of the various comments made, cool.
  • AtamaAtama Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited April 2022
    Noaani wrote: »
    Atama wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Atama wrote: »
    Are we sure that is the case for skins?
    We don't yet know how skins will work, so it may not be the case for them.

    However, skins are (as far as I can see) mostly to be found in game, while costumes are to be found on the store. As such, it is the costume aspect of cosmetics that are the issue here.

    That's just untrue. Every month, there is one costume and one skin for sale. There are the same number of costumes as there are skins.

    For example, this month we have the Badland Scavenger Handwraps, which is a glove skin, and the Desolation Outlander costume. I've bought more skins than costumes from the shop, because I like the idea of piecing a unique appearance together from different cosmetic pieces than getting one costume covering my body. (Though I do have a few costumes that I thought looked really cool.)
    I said mostly, and also as far as I can see.

    Intrepid have stated that costumes (note; costumes, not cosmetics) are available from the store - and have not said they are available in game. They have also talked about the flexibility of in game cosmetics over store bought costumes, and how in game cosmetics can be mixed and matched while store bought are all or nothing.

    What is up for sale now is unlikely to be an exact representation of what will be on the store when the game launches.

    The only way to interpret what Intrepid have said that I can see, is that when the game launches, you will be able to find individual slot cosmetics in game, and buy costumes that cover all slots from the store. While there may be the occasional situation that breaks this rule, this does seem to be what they are generally aiming at.

    If you have a different interpretation of the various comments made, cool.

    I do have a different interpretation. Steven has said, "I want to make sure that equitable cosmetics both from a quantity and quality standpoint are achievable through in-game achievements." If you then can only acquire costumes from the store and they can't be achieved in-game, then that belies his statements.

    Steven has stated that "skins" are available from the store in Discord. Note he didn't call them "costumes".

    https://discord.com/channels/256164085366915072/257283936756039680/389614941067280385

    Margaret confirmed the difference between "costume" and "accessory" cosmetics.

    https://discord.com/channels/256164085366915072/257283936756039680/664646300112912435

    There is no information posted anywhere that has stated that costumes will only be found in the store, and there is no information stating that accessory cosmetics (which cover only parts of a character, like cloaks, belts, hats, gloves, boots) will not be available in the store.

    Now, what we've never seen in the store, and I would suspect might only be available in-game, are skins that cover other parts of the body. Specifically, the torso and legs (front, obviously a cloak might cover your entire back). If that is what you are referring to, I would say I agree with you. But there is nothing indicating that the only character cosmetics we'll get in the store are costumes, and that you won't be able to get those in-game.

    I also haven't seen any weapon skins. I do recall weapon effects from Kickstarter (though I have no idea what they'll look like, I sure hope they are cool).
     
    Hhak63P.png
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Atama wrote: »

    I do have a different interpretation. Steven has said, "I want to make sure that equitable cosmetics both from a quantity and quality standpoint are achievable through in-game achievements." If you then can only acquire costumes from the store and they can't be achieved in-game, then that belies his statements.

    I disagree.

    If the store sells full costumes, and you are able to earn individual pieces in game that can be mixed and matched, as well as recolored, these are equitable notions.

    Some people would far prefer the premade outfit. Less hassle, less time, you know what it will look like.

    Some people would far prefer the piecemeal approach, more customization to get exactly the look they want.

    Equitable does not mean the same. It means of equal value. If some people value single piece more and others value piecemeal more, then these are equitable.

    What I will say is that there isn't enough solid info on this yet - and it may be that Intrepid have jot made a decision one way or the other.

    This is why I said both "as far as I can see", and also that you may have a different interpretation.

    What I can say for sure though, is that I have not seen anything at all to suggest Intrepid won't do as per my interpretation.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited April 2022
    I'm pretty sure it's not going to be "cloth only on cloth".
    I expect that we will be able to turn off headgear via some form of transmog.
    I hope we will also be able to turn off chest pieces, so we can see tattoos and scarification.

    Since we can already cover gear with a full costume, it doesn’t make much sense to restrict gear skins such that a cloth skin must be placed over cloth gear, rather than over leather or plate gear.
    We’re supposed to have some other indicator which informs us what type of gear people are truly wearing.
  • AtamaAtama Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited April 2022
    Noaani wrote: »
    Atama wrote: »

    I do have a different interpretation. Steven has said, "I want to make sure that equitable cosmetics both from a quantity and quality standpoint are achievable through in-game achievements." If you then can only acquire costumes from the store and they can't be achieved in-game, then that belies his statements.

    I disagree.

    If the store sells full costumes, and you are able to earn individual pieces in game that can be mixed and matched, as well as recolored, these are equitable notions.

    Costumes, unlike individual pieces, can be worn without restriction over anything. There is no other cosmetic that can do that. If you can’t get costumes in-game, Steven lied. I’d rather believe Steven over your baseless speculation.
     
    Hhak63P.png
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Aren't the individual pieces of the store sets for NPCs?
    You can't acquire individual pieces in the same colors as the store versions, AFAIK.
  • AtamaAtama Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Dygz wrote: »
    Aren't the individual pieces of the store sets for NPCs?
    You can't acquire individual pieces in the same colors as the store versions, AFAIK.
    Individual pieces of the costumes, yes.

    There are also individual pieces of cosmetic gear for sale each month (accessory cosmetics) that you can mix and match. Hats, rings, gloves, boots, belts, cloaks, masks, a huge variety. A couple months ago there was even a little telescope that I believe could hang from a belt or something.
     
    Hhak63P.png
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Atama wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Atama wrote: »

    I do have a different interpretation. Steven has said, "I want to make sure that equitable cosmetics both from a quantity and quality standpoint are achievable through in-game achievements." If you then can only acquire costumes from the store and they can't be achieved in-game, then that belies his statements.

    I disagree.

    If the store sells full costumes, and you are able to earn individual pieces in game that can be mixed and matched, as well as recolored, these are equitable notions.

    Costumes, unlike individual pieces, can be worn without restriction over anything. There is no other cosmetic that can do that. If you can’t get costumes in-game, Steven lied. I’d rather believe Steven over your baseless speculation.

    You are thinking equal, not equitable.

    Equitable basically means fair and even.

    Sure, costumes may have that advantage over piecemeal, but piecemeal allows for more customization.

    You may prefer one of these over the other, but others would prefer the other.

    Thus, fair and even. Not equal by any means, but equitable.
  • AtamaAtama Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Atama wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Atama wrote: »

    I do have a different interpretation. Steven has said, "I want to make sure that equitable cosmetics both from a quantity and quality standpoint are achievable through in-game achievements." If you then can only acquire costumes from the store and they can't be achieved in-game, then that belies his statements.

    I disagree.

    If the store sells full costumes, and you are able to earn individual pieces in game that can be mixed and matched, as well as recolored, these are equitable notions.

    Costumes, unlike individual pieces, can be worn without restriction over anything. There is no other cosmetic that can do that. If you can’t get costumes in-game, Steven lied. I’d rather believe Steven over your baseless speculation.

    You are thinking equal, not equitable.

    Equitable basically means fair and even.

    Sure, costumes may have that advantage over piecemeal, but piecemeal allows for more customization.

    You may prefer one of these over the other, but others would prefer the other.

    Thus, fair and even. Not equal by any means, but equitable.

    That’s nonsense.

    Costumes have an objective advantage that no other cosmetic provides. If you can’t get them in game, then there is no equity. You’re trying to counter that with a subjective, “But some people might like piecemeal items more.” That argument fails.

    Face it Noaani, you have nothing but wishful thinking, and it contradicts developer statements. You’re proven wrong. You can make up whatever you want, but there is evidence that invalidates your imagination.
     
    Hhak63P.png
Sign In or Register to comment.