Is this MMO going to have any monetary features?

Is this MMO going to have monetary features other than purchasing the game and a subscription?
Examples: Paying to level up - Buying mounts and other cosmetic features, etc.

IMO if at all possible, if you can muster it (like the world most popular MMO for its first 3 expansions), I would not put any of these in game. If any monetary features are in the game even harmless skins I personally am going to be less inclined to purchase AOC.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ludullu

You only pay for the sub (no game purchase) and there's a cosmetics store. That's it. No p2w, no pay for convenience.

BaSkA_9x2

LeoManechest wrote: »

If any monetary features are in the game even harmless skins I personally am going to be less inclined to purchase AOC.

There will be skins for your character, skins for your mount which you must own (the skin isn't a mount itself) and skins for your freehold.

It's not ideal, but it's a whole lot better than P2W.

AidanKD

With no box price and only a sub being mandatory, surely you can't have a problem with store cosmetics! Think of it as, you have the option to use what you would have paid for a box price to get some cosmetics while supporting the game. Double win in my book.

SirChancelot

LeoManechest wrote: »

Is this MMO going to have monetary features other than purchasing the game and a subscription?
Examples: Paying to level up - Buying mounts and other cosmetic features, etc.

IMO if at all possible, if you can muster it (like the world most popular MMO for its first 3 expansions), I would not put any of these in game. If any monetary features are in the game even harmless skins I personally am going to be less inclined to purchase AOC.

You can go to the store page now and see the cosmetics they have for sale. In theory that's all the types of cosmetics they will be selling in the store

PenguinPaladin

The one actually debaited thing on whether it could be used as pay to win is if they put their monster coins in the shop.........

Veeshan

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

The one actually debaited thing on whether it could be used as pay to win is if they put their monster coins in the shop.........

I would say thats pay to PvP without penalty lol.

im guessing the reward will just be cosmetics tied into a monster coin vendor which u get coin for if u participate in the monster or player side for clearing/winning it that would be my assumption since steven view on pay to win in games

PenguinPaladin

Veeshan wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

The one actually debaited thing on whether it could be used as pay to win is if they put their monster coins in the shop.........

I would say thats pay to PvP without penalty lol.

im guessing the reward will just be cosmetics tied into a monster coin vendor which u get coin for if u participate in the monster or player side for clearing/winning it that would be my assumption since steven view on pay to win in games

The monster coin event ties out systems of the node under seige. It directly weakens the host node. It prevents resources added to the node. Its essentually all of the downsides of a node being underseige except there is no "player party" waring the node.

A node under a monster coin event could then be seiged directly after while weakend. And how well the player do while controling the monsters, effect how long systems are shut down for the node....

I think the monster coin system, is good and interesting. I think the monster event is good for shaking up the world in an interesting way. Making the coins purchasable is very much toeing the line of pay to win.

unknownsystemerror

The monster coin events do not occur during a siege. They do not delevel the node, as there is no node deleveling. A loss on the player side may cause some services to be temporarily disabled. The rewards are purely cosmetic. Players have no way to target a specific node to "weaken" it before a siege.

Night Wings

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Monster_coins

key points
Monster coin events do not occur before sieges.[15]
Monster coin events do not occur during sieges.[14]

Monster coins are obtainable from:
Rare drops in-game.[19]
Purchasable from the cosmetic store.[19]
Monster coins are not tradeable.[6]

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Expansions

DLC expansions (post-launch releases) are planned on a monthly, quarterly, or six-monthly basis.[1][2]

The frequency and size of expansions will be based on the popularity and subscription base of the game.[1]
DLC will not cost anything more than the normal subscription.[3][4]
Larger expansions will add new content and increase various aspects of the game.[1][5]
Increased level cap.[1][5]
New gear sets.[1]
New zones.[1]
New bosses.[1]
New skill levels.[5]
Increased power levels.[5]
Gear upgrades.[5]
New content will primarily be introduced through the node system. The goal is for existing content to remain relevant alongside the new content.[6]
Because of the modularity of a lot of the systems that we're working on, it's not too hard to iterate and implement new things... We're planning on going on a quarterly/ monthly cycle to continue to push out new content.[7] – Jeffrey Bard

The quarterly cycle for the big content is good for us and then, as you said, those modular components to our mechanisms in the game allow for us to introduce smaller content patches that can be seen in real time in the world.[7] – Steven Sharif

We don't intend to a wordsmith around future charge for DLC content. As a subscription model, that's part of the agreement between us as a Studio and you guys: That there will be regularly scheduled updates and chapters; and that subscription is what allows you to access that content.[4] – Steven Sharif

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Cosmetic_store

I want to incentivize purchase in the cosmetic shop for sustainability of what expansions we have intended, since we are not a box cost. I want to incentivize purchase by offering limited items: limited time, limited quantity, so you have confidence that when you purchase them, they won't be offered later on in some other way.[4] – Steven Sharif

Nothing in our shop will ever be pay to win as we believe this practice greatly hurts the MMORPG genre.[5]

Inventory slots, RNG loot boxes and XP potions are considered pay-to-win.[34][35][36][37]
There will not be level boosts or auto-leveling.[38]
There will not be a loot box system in Ashes of Creation.[34]

LeoManechest

Hey you've got my opinion. I'm not playing a game with cosmetics. I fully against paid cosmetics and partially against in-game (free) cosmetics. It's silly, it's 2022. If they put cosmetics in this game; watch it fail. People should just look like the items they're wearing. It's like high school all over again. Silly.

George_Black

While I agree in ideology, the reality is that games cost a lot more to make in 2022. Every single game sells cosmetics, not just mmos.

Noaani

LeoManechest wrote: »

Hey you've got my opinion. I'm not playing a game with cosmetics. I fully against paid cosmetics and partially against in-game (free) cosmetics. It's silly, it's 2022. If they put cosmetics in this game; watch it fail. People should just look like the items they're wearing. It's like high school all over again. Silly.

Can you point to even one game that has failed due to having cosmetic only microtransactions?

I mean, I am not the biggest fan of them, but if you look at how long the price of the average AAA game has stayed fairly level (realistically, 20 years) and you look at inflation over that time, games that were $60 should now be $100.

I'm ok with developers that opt to make up that difference via cosmetic only sales, rather than pay to win sales or an increased box or subscription price.

Elder

Noaani wrote: »

LeoManechest wrote: »

Hey you've got my opinion. I'm not playing a game with cosmetics. I fully against paid cosmetics and partially against in-game (free) cosmetics. It's silly, it's 2022. If they put cosmetics in this game; watch it fail. People should just look like the items they're wearing. It's like high school all over again. Silly.

Can you point to even one game that has failed due to having cosmetic only microtransactions?

From what I've experienced, when companies start failing they often start including additional monetization models as attempts to prevent their failure. This is an especially common practice for MMOS. RuneScape is a great example of this, they consistently expanded on their monetization methods once the Solomon's Store (Cosmetic Store) was no longer viable.

Now they have loot boxes, battle passes, multiple optional subscription fees and Bonds (WoW Token). Not to mention every few years they seem to increase the sub cost. The sad and unfortunate truth is that RuneScape would most definitely be dead by now if it wasn't so heavily monetized.

daveywavey

Elder wrote: »

From what I've experienced, when companies start failing they often start including additional monetization models as attempts to prevent their failure. This is an especially common practice for MMOS. RuneScape is a great example of this, they consistently expanded on their monetization methods once the Solomon's Store (Cosmetic Store) was no longer viable.

This isn't additional monetization. It's pretty much been there from the get-go.

daveywavey

Night Wings wrote: »

Monster coin events do not occur before sieges.[15]
Monster coin events do not occur during sieges.[14]

So, if players just keep pushing siege scrolls, we'll never get a Monster Coin event?

Elder

daveywavey wrote: »

Elder wrote: »

From what I've experienced, when companies start failing they often start including additional monetization models as attempts to prevent their failure. This is an especially common practice for MMOS. RuneScape is a great example of this, they consistently expanded on their monetization methods once the Solomon's Store (Cosmetic Store) was no longer viable.

This isn't additional monetization. It's pretty much been there from the get-go.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you be more specific. What's been where from the get-go?

If you're talking about RuneScape's monetization, I can assure you. The monetization models I listed were not there from the get-go. The earliest additional monetization RuneScape implemented, as far as I can remember, was the squeal of fortune in 2012. More than one decade after the games release.

If for some reason you've misunderstood me and are referring to AoC's monetization, then I'd like to bring up that I never mentioned it or stated any opinions on the subject.

Romancyy

LeoManechest wrote: »

Hey you've got my opinion. I'm not playing a game with cosmetics. I fully against paid cosmetics and partially against in-game (free) cosmetics. It's silly, it's 2022. If they put cosmetics in this game; watch it fail. People should just look like the items they're wearing. It's like high school all over again. Silly.

If you don't like cosmetics that's fine, but thinking the game will fail because they have cosmetics hilarious considering the most successful games out all sell cosmetics to some degree. This is one of the situations where you need to realize you're the minority opinion.

Taleof2Cities

LeoManechest wrote: »

Hey you've got my opinion. I'm not playing a game with cosmetics. I fully against paid cosmetics and partially against in-game (free) cosmetics. It's silly, it's 2022. If they put cosmetics in this game; watch it fail. People should just look like the items they're wearing. It's like high school all over again. Silly.

You're right, @Romancyy.

The above quote is a classic red herring logical fallacy ...

daveywavey

Elder wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

Elder wrote: »

From what I've experienced, when companies start failing they often start including additional monetization models as attempts to prevent their failure. This is an especially common practice for MMOS. RuneScape is a great example of this, they consistently expanded on their monetization methods once the Solomon's Store (Cosmetic Store) was no longer viable.

This isn't additional monetization. It's pretty much been there from the get-go.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you be more specific. What's been where from the get-go?

If you're talking about RuneScape's monetization, I can assure you. The monetization models I listed were not there from the get-go. The earliest additional monetization RuneScape implemented, as far as I can remember, was the squeal of fortune in 2012. More than one decade after the games release.

If for some reason you've misunderstood me and are referring to AoC's monetization, then I'd like to bring up that I never mentioned it or stated any opinions on the subject.

You said that when games companies start adding additional monetization, it's cos they're failing. But, the Cosmetic Store isn't additional, it's part of the intended revenue model. There's just no reason to suggest that Intrepid is already failing just cos they have a Cosmetic Store. It's a planned source of income.

Elder

daveywavey wrote: »

Elder wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

Elder wrote: »

From what I've experienced, when companies start failing they often start including additional monetization models as attempts to prevent their failure. This is an especially common practice for MMOS. RuneScape is a great example of this, they consistently expanded on their monetization methods once the Solomon's Store (Cosmetic Store) was no longer viable.

This isn't additional monetization. It's pretty much been there from the get-go.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Could you be more specific. What's been where from the get-go?

If you're talking about RuneScape's monetization, I can assure you. The monetization models I listed were not there from the get-go. The earliest additional monetization RuneScape implemented, as far as I can remember, was the squeal of fortune in 2012. More than one decade after the games release.

If for some reason you've misunderstood me and are referring to AoC's monetization, then I'd like to bring up that I never mentioned it or stated any opinions on the subject.

You said that when games companies start adding additional monetization, it's cos they're failing. But, the Cosmetic Store isn't additional, it's part of the intended revenue model. There's just no reason to suggest that Intrepid is already failing just cos they have a Cosmetic Store. It's a planned source of income.

I never said anything at all about intrepid studios or ashes of creation. I never mentioned AoC's cosmetic store, I most certainly didn't suggest intrepid studios was failing.

My statement was in reference of this one specific statement. Which has nothing to do with AoC or Intrepid studios.

Noaani wrote: »

Can you point to even one game that has failed due to having cosmetic only microtransactions?

"From what I've experienced, when companies start failing they often start including additional monetization models as attempts to prevent their failure."

Please read my statement again carefully and attempt to understand it's meaning.

I'm obviously well aware of Intrepid's monetization models, I'm $1500 deep since the Kickstarter.

Child Item