I'm hearing a lot of whining from a bunch of children that have never had to make payroll, never had to say no to a new hire, never had to fire anyone, never had to cut costs dramatically to keep a business alive, or had to declare bankruptcy because they couldn't keep promises honestly made.
Mr. Sharif has put up millions of his own dollars which he could have used to retire, and risked them all to make a game that he loves, so that others can play as well. He's made hundreds if not thousands of real promises to employees, vendors, banks, not to mention all those who have Pledged, or will Pledge.
The burden of keeping those promises falls on his shoulders, and his ability to keep them will depending largely on cash flow. Every dollar spent on cosmetics now is that much longer his investment can carry Ashes forward.
Shill. ^
The game was entirely fully funded.
Mr Sharif did this seemingly because he wanted to make the best mmo. The best mmo doesn’t have a cash shop.
There are other alternatives to monetization. He doesn’t have to do cash shop model and people who will be purchasing his product on a monthly basis can give alternative ideas on the forum he created to get said customer feedback and ideas.
What are the mmo's that launched at that price to use as reference for all of that?
It's an economics basic, not something specific to one market or product.
People literally increase prices on items in order to curb sales when supply temporarily can't meet demand. This basic fact goes across all products in all industries across the world.
Seriously, go to any Economics101 paper, and this will be covered in the first 10 minutes.
Seriously, go to any Economics101 paper, and this will be covered in the first 10 minutes.
Maybe you should write a paper on it.
Could you explain how they will “lose players” by having the price of their product at say $20, or any other price higher than $15, at launch of a brand new game? They have no players to lose at release, so they will only be gaining players. Also, don’t people tend to be more willing to pay more than average for products of better quality. If this mmo is aiming to be of higher quality than the current ones, shouldn’t the cost be more?
Could you explain how they will “lose players” by having the price of their product at say $20, or any other price higher than $15, at launch of a brand new game?
Any person that is looking at the game but decides to not subscribe due to the price (or any other reason, really) is a lost subscriber.
At best, this line of inquiry can be killed off by simply pointing out that we are talking about ASshes having fewer subscribers with a $20 fee than it would have with a $15 fee - regardless of when the increase in cost happens - and it is an increase in cost because we have already been told it is $15.
Also, don’t people tend to be more willing to pay more than average for products of better quality. If this mmo is aiming to be of higher quality than the current ones, shouldn’t the cost be more?
Not always.
As I have said several times though, this isn't the point. I've said before I am personally fine with Intrepid charging $20 a month. However, as I have also said - that will mean fewer subscribers than if they stick to $15.
Any person that is looking at the game but decides to not subscribe due to the price (or any other reason, really) is a lost subscriber.
At best, this line of inquiry can be killed off by simply pointing out that we are talking about ASshes having fewer subscribers with a $20 fee than it would have with a $15 fee - regardless of when the increase in cost happens - and it is an increase in cost because we have already been told it is $15.
I suppose the first part is true if they are assuming every person who looks at the game would have subscribed, but that’s not very realistic. What I think might be more accurate of lost subscribers is the second month.
I don’t agree the second part. Just because a product is cheaper that does not always equal more sales… there are plenty of cheap products that do worse in sales than more expensive counter parts.
Also, I don’t think when things are in development it is fair to hold onto word of mouth initial anything, including sub cost. No one has paid it yet and the game isn’t out.
Regardless, none of this changes my mind on cash shops so we can probably just stop this debate, Noaani. It was just my opinion after all.
I like the direction AoC is heading. And I personally have nothing against a cosmetics shop, as long as there really is no p2w.
People should focus more on what is being accomplished here, there are so many good things about this game. Its okay not to agree with every aspect of it and if you really cant stand it..dont. As was said, there are other games.
I for one am really looking forward to finally playing this game and wearing awesome, storebought cosmetics or crafting my own if i find the time for it.
I’ve made a thread about a distaste for paid for cosmetics and so have many others. The simple issue these defenders have with this opinion is that they are already all bought into hundreds of dollars worth of cosmetics for this unreleased game and they have “embers” they are terrified of being devalued.
Hahahahahaha! Hahahaha! Hehehe! Ahahahaha!
Ahem.
Ahahahahahahahaha.
Ahem ahem.
Right, if you've made your own thread about this, and have seen other threads about this, and still think that the reason it's defended is because people have already bought them, then there's absolutely no hope for you whatsoever. Maybe you should ask whoever helps you to get your shoes on in the morning to pre-read your forum posts. Or possibly whoever pre-chews your food for you.
The simple issue these defenders have with this opinion is that they are already all bought into hundreds of dollars worth of cosmetics for this unreleased game and they have “embers” they are terrified of being devalued.
Hahahahahaha! Hahahaha! Hehehe! Ahahahaha!
Ahem.
Ahahahahahahahaha.
Ahem ahem.
Right, if you've made your own thread about this, and have seen other threads about this, and still think that the reason it's defended is because people have already bought them, then there's absolutely no hope for you whatsoever. Maybe you should ask whoever helps you to get your shoes on in the morning to pre-read your forum posts. Or possibly whoever pre-chews your food for you.
Right, back to the laughing.
Aaaahahahahahahahahaha.......
You definitely don’t sound like the person I was talking about when you make this kind of response, no not at all. You don’t need to get so defensive and childish about this… it’s just a forum post, mouse boy. Go crawl back in your smelly hole and laugh with all your rodent friends if it makes you feel better, but don’t tag me in your shit posting.
I don’t agree the second part. Just because a product is cheaper that does not always equal more sales…
This is true - but the reverse is not.
A product being more expensive equals less sales. Cases where this doesn't happen are so rare, they become academic research topics.
Keep in mind, you are not arguing with me here - you are essentially arguing with the entire field of economics.
Actually there are studies that show consumers will pay more for a single expensive item, such as an ashes of creation monthly fee, than they will for a combination of cheaper ones, such as cosmetics.
So no, not the “entire field of economics” I really am just arguing with a know-it-all who likes to tear down other’s opinions instead of just sharing his own separately on the ashes of creation forums. Which was my mistake, I won’t respond to the things you say to me anymore.
1
Options
HinotoriMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The whole idea is to have the lowest barrier for entry possible so that the servers are populated and people are having fun all while keeping the lights on and funding expansion content, so all the players buying skins are funding the game for you and making it cheaper.
Increasing prices would be detrimental to the playerbase and likely hurt the launch of AOC and its ability to retain players.
The game itself will have amazing cosmetics players can earn without spending a dollar on the cash shop.
The $5 more than the current average price of mmo’s won’t make a difference in their decision at that point.[/b]
$5 a month will literally always be the deciding factor for some people.
This is true at all times, but is especially true heading in to a recession.
To go off of what you said, a cosmetic shop would then make no revenue in a recession as people will especially be less willing to dish out $20+ extra dollars for cosmetics than to pay $5 extra to play the game at all.
That's the beauty of a Cosmetic shop. It's entirely optional.
No, I've been playing games that don't have cosmetics in them.
Not trying to argue, I'm genuinely just curious.
What online game; that's still active, has no cosmetics?
It's probably worth trying out to compare how they do it.
DayZ, Diablo 2, Diablo 2 Resurrected, WoW Vanilla Classic, Escape from Tarkov, Eve Online , etc. are some of the games I've played with no cosmetics.
If you don't like a feature in a game, there are so many other games out there ...
People seem to feel like they have to play these Pay 2 Win, Pay for Cosmetic trash games ...
EVE Online absolutely has cosmetics.
WoW Classic is basically a dead game that was resurrected to function like it did in early 2000. Not sure that counts either as we're basically talking about a game that ceased to exist nearly 20 years ago.
DayZ, Diablo 2, Escape from Tarkov, aren't MMOs though, so also not applicable to the current discussion.
Eve had cosmetics that no one used as far as I could see, and were more like stickers. It wasn't like an entirely different looking ship but had the same stats.
It's not about if it's an MMO or not. There are other ways to entertain yourself. You don't have to play free to play, pay to win, pay for cosmetics games
Used or not used, the statement was EVE has no cosmetics. That is therefore wrong.
And it absolutely matters if it's an MMO or not. It's not the same to spend 60€/$ on a game and play multiplayer -- or even getting a Free to Play game and having cosmetics -- than it is to have a subscription based game with cosmetics.
The entire revenue stream for the company making the game is greatly different, and the design philosophies for the game will greatly differ.
Also, I therefore expect you won't be playing the game? You seem to be against the cosmetics. I figure you'll be spending time with some other activity then. If so, what reason to be on these forums? Proselytizing your position?
Shill. ^
The game was entirely fully funded.
Mr Sharif did this seemingly because he wanted to make the best mmo. The best mmo doesn’t have a cash shop.
There are other alternatives to monetization. He doesn’t have to do cash shop model and people who will be purchasing his product on a monthly basis can give alternative ideas on the forum he created to get said customer feedback and ideas.
So does the game being fully funded mean he doesn't get to maximise the profit from his investment? Was this all some charity case in favor of MMO players?
Consider too that the game is not out for at least 2 or 3 years at a minimum. He's basically paying everything out of his own pocket. And that's been the case for what now? 5-6 years?
The Cosmetics and Alpha/Beta keys are the company's sole revenue at this time.
Shill. ^
The game was entirely fully funded.
Mr Sharif did this seemingly because he wanted to make the best mmo. The best mmo doesn’t have a cash shop.
There are other alternatives to monetization. He doesn’t have to do cash shop model and people who will be purchasing his product on a monthly basis can give alternative ideas on the forum he created to get said customer feedback and ideas.
Best mmo does have a cash shop actually. Look at any top mmo on the market. Welcome to 2022, be thankful this one doesn't have p2W unlike every single other mmorpg. If you want to support it that is up to you else you can support every other mmo that goes p2w.
The whole idea is to have the lowest barrier for entry possible so that the servers are populated and people are having fun all while keeping the lights on and funding expansion content, so all the players buying skins are funding the game for you and making it cheaper.
Increasing prices would be detrimental to the playerbase and likely hurt the launch of AOC and its ability to retain players.
A free trial period is the best way to have the lowest barrier of entry and if the game is good enough, people will pay a reasonable price to sub after becoming invested.
There are studies that show consumers will pay more for a single expensive item, such as an ashes of creation monthly fee, than they will for a combination of cheaper ones, such as cosmetics. So, no, cosmetic shop is not necessarily the best monetization model for funding future expansions.
Where is the data to show that having sub price at launch slightly more expensive than $15 is "detrimental" to a player base? There isn't because you don't have a player base until the game is already launched and people are playing the game. They aren't increasing their price until the game is launched and people are paying a set price and then they would be increasing it at that point.
I was speaking to an "ideal" best mmo that meets the needs of all it's consumers without putting any strain on player experience (as in my opinion, any form of cash shop), which seems to be Stevens dream with this. I was not talking about current mmos.
So does the game being fully funded mean he doesn't get to maximise the profit from his investment? Was this all some charity case in favor of MMO players?
The Cosmetics and Alpha/Beta keys are the company's sole revenue at this time.
1. Where does your line draw on where he should stop maximizing his profit? Seems to be p2w for a lot of people. For me, it's cash shops in general. Would you be okay if he sold out this game to maximize his profit? What if he sells to a company that adds p2w in the already implemented monetization model of cash shops? Atleast he maximized his profit, right?
2. I understand their current revenue is cosmetics, and I don't care about that. My whole opinion has been about once they are making revenue from subs and the game is released.
A free trial period is the best way to have the lowest barrier of entry and if the game is good enough, people will pay a reasonable price to sub after becoming invested.
Except free trials would have to limit pretty much every function in the game, because if the free player can be a part of the economy - the game will be killed by bots. And if you limit the player experience in the free trial, there's barely any point in said trial because it doesn't show the game properly.
You could have a gameplay/combat demo as a completely separate entity, but then I'm not sure how many people would buy the game (especially at $20) just based off of that.
A free trial period is the best way to have the lowest barrier of entry and if the game is good enough, people will pay a reasonable price to sub after becoming invested.
Except free trials would have to limit pretty much every function in the game, because if the free player can be a part of the economy - the game will be killed by bots. And if you limit the player experience in the free trial, there's barely any point in said trial because it doesn't show the game properly.
You could have a gameplay/combat demo as a completely separate entity, but then I'm not sure how many people would buy the game (especially at $20) just based off of that.
Guild Wars 2 offers a free period, so does WoW, and Runescape has free to play... there are tons of mmos that offer this in different forms and it works just fine. Actually getting to play the game and becoming invested in my character made me pay for all three of those subs at one point in time. All mmo games have bots and there are other, better measures to stop them.
Guild Wars 2 offers a free period, so does WoW, and Runescape has free to play... there are tons of mmos that offer this in different forms and it works just fine. Actually getting to play the game and becoming invested in my character made me pay for all three of those subs at one point in time. All mmo games have bots and there are other, better measures to stop them.
So a game with pretty much horizontal gear, a game that's infamous for being bot-ridden and a game that has a completely different monetization scheme. I don't think those are the best examples to counter AoC's free trial not fitting its design.
Also, yes, there's always gonna be bots, but you can either limit their amount or not care about it. Having a full free trial with no restrictions would be the latter option. And it would make GM's work even harder than it already will be.
AoC's market/gearing/crafting design are fully interconnected and keep all tiers of mats/gear valuable. Gear will also not be soulbound, so if you can grind countless mats with a free bot and then sell it on the market - you're devaluing the work of others (a classic with bots).
GW2 doesn't have that as an issue cause its gear is way more horizontal afaik and I'm not even sure about its trading/soulbound systems. WoW pretty much operates on soulbound shit and even still it has bot problems. And I dunno enough about Runescape, but if it's f2p then it obviously has its own designs that fit that monetization scheme.
0
Options
HinotoriMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Runescape and wow are rife with bots. I can't comment on GW2 as I haven't played it.
However the reason why there's no information about having a higher sub fee at launch is because no studio or game has been crazy enough to go with $20 fee at launch and price themselves out of the market, especially in an MMORPG where one of the main draw cards is that it's got a large playerbase with enough people for complex social interactions.
And the latest mmo to actually raise its subscription cost (eve online) suffered enormous backlash.
I don't know what you could possibly be smoking to think it makes good economic sense particularly when you already have a plethora of people in third world countries particularly in the discord every day asking about the harmonised subscription because $15 dollars is already too high for them.
Ashes will have bots no matter what the sub price is, having a free trial or not will not affect that either. Where there is a way to sell online currency, there will be bots. People in other countries make a living off of it because their real life money is essentially meaningless. If they have to spend $20 of their profit to keep surviving, they would. There is a whole other discussion on the forums about how to limit bots with identification, etc, if you guys want to go there for that debate.
There are studies that show consumers will pay more for a single expensive item, such as an ashes of creation monthly fee, than they will for a combination of cheaper ones, such as cosmetics. There really isn’t an argument that can convince me to like or want cash shops. Also, no one is addressing the very real possibility that an already implemented cash shop as a monetization model means p2w down the road if the game is sold. Everyone here acts like they work for intrepid’s financial team XD
Actually there are studies that show consumers will pay more for a single expensive item, such as an ashes of creation monthly fee, than they will for a combination of cheaper ones, such as cosmetics.
Yeah, but that isn't what we are talking about.
We are talking about how many people will buy one item at $15 vs the exact same item at $20.
There are studies that show consumers will pay more for a single expensive item, such as an ashes of creation monthly fee, than they will for a combination of cheaper ones, such as cosmetics. There really isn’t an argument that can convince me to like or want cash shops. Also, no one is addressing the very real possibility that an already implemented cash shop as a monetization model means p2w down the road if the game is sold. Everyone here acts like they work for intrepid’s financial team XD
The whole genre of Gacha wants to introduce itself literal billions upon billions made through mtx. Which is also the main reason for why pretty much every other game in the current existence went the way of mtx. It just pays way more.
I was speaking to an "ideal" best mmo that meets the needs of all it's consumers without putting any strain on player experience (as in my opinion, any form of cash shop), which seems to be Stevens dream with this. I was not talking about current mmos.
In an ideal world id be rich and have my own company.
There are studies that show consumers will pay more for a single expensive item, such as an ashes of creation monthly fee, than they will for a combination of cheaper ones, such as cosmetics. There really isn’t an argument that can convince me to like or want cash shops. Also, no one is addressing the very real possibility that an already implemented cash shop as a monetization model means p2w down the road if the game is sold. Everyone here acts like they work for intrepid’s financial team XD
The whole genre of Gacha wants to introduce itself literal billions upon billions made through mtx. Which is also the main reason for why pretty much every other game in the current existence went the way of mtx. It just pays way more.
Just because it’s the current model doesn’t mean it’s the right one to use. Yea, it makes a lot of money because it exploits people with fomo, gambling, loot box dopamine, and the like. Hence, why I think cash shops are crap shops. Instead of exploiting people for huge profits, you could just charge a reasonable amount for your product. Especially if you want your product to be long lasting and offer a high quality experience.
There really isn’t an argument that can convince me to like or want cash shops.
Heh - isn't this the exact same impasse where we ended this conversation last time?
It's clear you're fundamentally against a cosmetic shop - totally fine - but Ashes will have a cosmetic shop, that ship has sailed. So just seems like you have to make a decision about what you want to do. Not sure what other outcome you're expecting out of this conversation...
Comments
Mr. Sharif has put up millions of his own dollars which he could have used to retire, and risked them all to make a game that he loves, so that others can play as well. He's made hundreds if not thousands of real promises to employees, vendors, banks, not to mention all those who have Pledged, or will Pledge.
The burden of keeping those promises falls on his shoulders, and his ability to keep them will depending largely on cash flow. Every dollar spent on cosmetics now is that much longer his investment can carry Ashes forward.
The game was entirely fully funded.
Mr Sharif did this seemingly because he wanted to make the best mmo. The best mmo doesn’t have a cash shop.
There are other alternatives to monetization. He doesn’t have to do cash shop model and people who will be purchasing his product on a monthly basis can give alternative ideas on the forum he created to get said customer feedback and ideas.
People literally increase prices on items in order to curb sales when supply temporarily can't meet demand. This basic fact goes across all products in all industries across the world.
Seriously, go to any Economics101 paper, and this will be covered in the first 10 minutes.
Maybe you should write a paper on it.
Could you explain how they will “lose players” by having the price of their product at say $20, or any other price higher than $15, at launch of a brand new game? They have no players to lose at release, so they will only be gaining players. Also, don’t people tend to be more willing to pay more than average for products of better quality. If this mmo is aiming to be of higher quality than the current ones, shouldn’t the cost be more?
At best, this line of inquiry can be killed off by simply pointing out that we are talking about ASshes having fewer subscribers with a $20 fee than it would have with a $15 fee - regardless of when the increase in cost happens - and it is an increase in cost because we have already been told it is $15. Not always.
As I have said several times though, this isn't the point. I've said before I am personally fine with Intrepid charging $20 a month. However, as I have also said - that will mean fewer subscribers than if they stick to $15.
I don’t agree the second part. Just because a product is cheaper that does not always equal more sales… there are plenty of cheap products that do worse in sales than more expensive counter parts.
Also, I don’t think when things are in development it is fair to hold onto word of mouth initial anything, including sub cost. No one has paid it yet and the game isn’t out.
Regardless, none of this changes my mind on cash shops so we can probably just stop this debate, Noaani. It was just my opinion after all.
A product being more expensive equals less sales. Cases where this doesn't happen are so rare, they become academic research topics.
Keep in mind, you are not arguing with me here - you are essentially arguing with the entire field of economics.
People should focus more on what is being accomplished here, there are so many good things about this game. Its okay not to agree with every aspect of it and if you really cant stand it..dont. As was said, there are other games.
I for one am really looking forward to finally playing this game and wearing awesome, storebought cosmetics or crafting my own if i find the time for it.
Have a nice day everyone!
Hahahahahaha! Hahahaha! Hehehe! Ahahahaha!
Ahem.
Ahahahahahahahaha.
Ahem ahem.
Right, if you've made your own thread about this, and have seen other threads about this, and still think that the reason it's defended is because people have already bought them, then there's absolutely no hope for you whatsoever. Maybe you should ask whoever helps you to get your shoes on in the morning to pre-read your forum posts. Or possibly whoever pre-chews your food for you.
Right, back to the laughing.
Aaaahahahahahahahahaha.......
You definitely don’t sound like the person I was talking about when you make this kind of response, no not at all. You don’t need to get so defensive and childish about this… it’s just a forum post, mouse boy. Go crawl back in your smelly hole and laugh with all your rodent friends if it makes you feel better, but don’t tag me in your shit posting.
Actually there are studies that show consumers will pay more for a single expensive item, such as an ashes of creation monthly fee, than they will for a combination of cheaper ones, such as cosmetics.
So no, not the “entire field of economics” I really am just arguing with a know-it-all who likes to tear down other’s opinions instead of just sharing his own separately on the ashes of creation forums. Which was my mistake, I won’t respond to the things you say to me anymore.
Increasing prices would be detrimental to the playerbase and likely hurt the launch of AOC and its ability to retain players.
The game itself will have amazing cosmetics players can earn without spending a dollar on the cash shop.
If you don't like it, just don't buy them.
That's the beauty of a Cosmetic shop. It's entirely optional.
Used or not used, the statement was EVE has no cosmetics. That is therefore wrong.
And it absolutely matters if it's an MMO or not. It's not the same to spend 60€/$ on a game and play multiplayer -- or even getting a Free to Play game and having cosmetics -- than it is to have a subscription based game with cosmetics.
The entire revenue stream for the company making the game is greatly different, and the design philosophies for the game will greatly differ.
Also, I therefore expect you won't be playing the game? You seem to be against the cosmetics. I figure you'll be spending time with some other activity then. If so, what reason to be on these forums? Proselytizing your position?
So does the game being fully funded mean he doesn't get to maximise the profit from his investment? Was this all some charity case in favor of MMO players?
Consider too that the game is not out for at least 2 or 3 years at a minimum. He's basically paying everything out of his own pocket. And that's been the case for what now? 5-6 years?
The Cosmetics and Alpha/Beta keys are the company's sole revenue at this time.
Best mmo does have a cash shop actually. Look at any top mmo on the market. Welcome to 2022, be thankful this one doesn't have p2W unlike every single other mmorpg. If you want to support it that is up to you else you can support every other mmo that goes p2w.
A free trial period is the best way to have the lowest barrier of entry and if the game is good enough, people will pay a reasonable price to sub after becoming invested.
There are studies that show consumers will pay more for a single expensive item, such as an ashes of creation monthly fee, than they will for a combination of cheaper ones, such as cosmetics. So, no, cosmetic shop is not necessarily the best monetization model for funding future expansions.
Where is the data to show that having sub price at launch slightly more expensive than $15 is "detrimental" to a player base? There isn't because you don't have a player base until the game is already launched and people are playing the game. They aren't increasing their price until the game is launched and people are paying a set price and then they would be increasing it at that point.
I was speaking to an "ideal" best mmo that meets the needs of all it's consumers without putting any strain on player experience (as in my opinion, any form of cash shop), which seems to be Stevens dream with this. I was not talking about current mmos.
1. Where does your line draw on where he should stop maximizing his profit? Seems to be p2w for a lot of people. For me, it's cash shops in general. Would you be okay if he sold out this game to maximize his profit? What if he sells to a company that adds p2w in the already implemented monetization model of cash shops? Atleast he maximized his profit, right?
2. I understand their current revenue is cosmetics, and I don't care about that. My whole opinion has been about once they are making revenue from subs and the game is released.
You could have a gameplay/combat demo as a completely separate entity, but then I'm not sure how many people would buy the game (especially at $20) just based off of that.
Guild Wars 2 offers a free period, so does WoW, and Runescape has free to play... there are tons of mmos that offer this in different forms and it works just fine. Actually getting to play the game and becoming invested in my character made me pay for all three of those subs at one point in time. All mmo games have bots and there are other, better measures to stop them.
Also, yes, there's always gonna be bots, but you can either limit their amount or not care about it. Having a full free trial with no restrictions would be the latter option. And it would make GM's work even harder than it already will be.
AoC's market/gearing/crafting design are fully interconnected and keep all tiers of mats/gear valuable. Gear will also not be soulbound, so if you can grind countless mats with a free bot and then sell it on the market - you're devaluing the work of others (a classic with bots).
GW2 doesn't have that as an issue cause its gear is way more horizontal afaik and I'm not even sure about its trading/soulbound systems. WoW pretty much operates on soulbound shit and even still it has bot problems. And I dunno enough about Runescape, but if it's f2p then it obviously has its own designs that fit that monetization scheme.
However the reason why there's no information about having a higher sub fee at launch is because no studio or game has been crazy enough to go with $20 fee at launch and price themselves out of the market, especially in an MMORPG where one of the main draw cards is that it's got a large playerbase with enough people for complex social interactions.
And the latest mmo to actually raise its subscription cost (eve online) suffered enormous backlash.
I don't know what you could possibly be smoking to think it makes good economic sense particularly when you already have a plethora of people in third world countries particularly in the discord every day asking about the harmonised subscription because $15 dollars is already too high for them.
There are studies that show consumers will pay more for a single expensive item, such as an ashes of creation monthly fee, than they will for a combination of cheaper ones, such as cosmetics. There really isn’t an argument that can convince me to like or want cash shops. Also, no one is addressing the very real possibility that an already implemented cash shop as a monetization model means p2w down the road if the game is sold. Everyone here acts like they work for intrepid’s financial team XD
We are talking about how many people will buy one item at $15 vs the exact same item at $20.
The answer is; fewer.
In an ideal world id be rich and have my own company.
Just because it’s the current model doesn’t mean it’s the right one to use. Yea, it makes a lot of money because it exploits people with fomo, gambling, loot box dopamine, and the like. Hence, why I think cash shops are crap shops. Instead of exploiting people for huge profits, you could just charge a reasonable amount for your product. Especially if you want your product to be long lasting and offer a high quality experience.
Heh - isn't this the exact same impasse where we ended this conversation last time?
It's clear you're fundamentally against a cosmetic shop - totally fine - but Ashes will have a cosmetic shop, that ship has sailed. So just seems like you have to make a decision about what you want to do. Not sure what other outcome you're expecting out of this conversation...