pay2win is ok but intrusive p2w is not?!

Hey guys,
After ArcheAge im very susceptible to p2w mechanics. The following might be wrong wording from Steven. Quote from the letter: "A world where choice matters, where risk vs reward can be truly felt, and intrusive pay-to-win monetization has no place."

meaning normal p2w has a place?!

I know Ashes stance is against pay 2 win but please be clear in the wording so there is no other way to interpret it.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

nibiru97

wolfwood82 wrote: »

It's still a reasonable statement "How does cosmetics impact gameplay" "it takes development time away from content we're already paying for, and puts it towards things we are to be tempted into paying for". Unless the cosmetics in question are fully obtainable in game, it's... less then horrible but still questionably bad business practice IMO.

I'm not a fan of a cosmetic shop, especially when the prices make it so only a certain % can/will be able to buy. I understand it makes the cosmetics more rare but I think at the price point now they are cutting out too many people. I believe the prices should be cut in half.

With that said, I do not believe it will take away development time from content we are paying for. 1st because they have said they will be using those assets in the game in some form or another after they've had slight adjustments. And 2nd because the extra money they make off those cosmetics can go toward paying for more developers. Actually when you think about it, development time can actually speed up if they wanted, because they can afford more extra developers on top of the ones that make those assets.

Roko

TheNobleOne wrote: »

Roko? What happened to s... forgot the previous name...

just decided to stop displaying my username as soon as I got the option for security reasons d^_^b

Dygz

I am fashion over function, so... for me, the cosmetic shop is just as bad as P2W gear.
That being said, as far as I can tell... "intrusive" is just there to add emphasis.
People can nitpick and flip out if they want to.

DrEpoch

Dygz wrote: »

I am fashion over function, so... for me, the cosmetic shop is just as bad as P2W gear.
That being said, as far as I can tell... "intrusive" is just there to add emphasis.
People can nitpick and flip out if they want to.

Nothing like not seeing what someone is wearing because they have fashion on. EEEEE

Noaani

wolfwood82 wrote: »

It's still a reasonable statement "How does cosmetics impact gameplay" "it takes development time away from content we're already paying for, and puts it towards things we are to be tempted into paying for". Unless the cosmetics in question are fully obtainable in game, it's... less then horrible but still questionably bad business practice IMO.

I don't know about you, but I don't want a character artist designing new combat systems.

The only thing designing character models for the shop will take away from is develooing character models for the game. Since we know the models used in the shop will filter down to the game, there is no loss of development time at all for the game.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

I am fashion over function, so... for me, the cosmetic shop is just as bad as P2W gear.
That being said, as far as I can tell... "intrusive" is just there to add emphasis.
People can nitpick and flip out if they want to.

This is the only valid reason to oppose the shop in Ashes that I've ever seen - but it is such as edge case that I would not expect a developer to consider it.

I mean, I never see anyone going in to combat in gear that is 30 levels lower than then just because it looks good (form over function) - unless the game has appearance slots.

unknownsystemerror

d61a06360c4b3b9a17cebefb64d58334.png?width=968&height=75

WizardTim

noaani wrote: »

wolfwood82 wrote: »

It's still a reasonable statement "How does cosmetics impact gameplay" "it takes development time away from content we're already paying for, and puts it towards things we are to be tempted into paying for". Unless the cosmetics in question are fully obtainable in game, it's... less then horrible but still questionably bad business practice IMO.

I don't know about you, but I don't want a character artist designing new combat systems.

The only thing designing character models for the shop will take away from is develooing character models for the game. Since we know the models used in the shop will filter down to the game, there is no loss of development time at all for the game.

So what you're suggesting is a spiffy cloak in the cash shop doesn't require rigging, physics programming, rigorous testing for clipping, and other activities necessary to render an active CGI component in a moving breathing game world? It just requires someone to draw it?

...

1) Why would a character artist be completely unable to participate in a non-code oriented aspect of game development such as combat systems? They can think and offer input as easily as you can without a college degree in jibberish.

2) You're ignoring a tremendous amount of code that's necessary to add 1 article of clothing to the game. Some articles of clothing are super easy, they are just textures plastered over or attached to a character model, but even adding that second qualifier "attached to" means hours (if not days) of rigorous testing to ensure clipping is minimized, or the product comes out incredibly tacky and cheap. Not necessarily something you want to "sell" to players, is it?

3) Time spent creating cash shop items is money spent creating cash shop items. It only gets returns if the cash shop items in question are desirable enough to open up the wallet, and that means EXTENSIVE time and effort. I'd rather all that time and effort went into those items, and them all being added to expansions, or dropped into the game for us to find/buy with in-game currency.

The argument is against the idea of me giving them money so that they can use that money to make a thing that is meant specifically to tempt me into giving them more money. I gave them money, they can use THAT money to pay for extra development teams and what not. That's what that money is FOR.

nibiru97 wrote: »

wolfwood82 wrote: »

It's still a reasonable statement "How does cosmetics impact gameplay" "it takes development time away from content we're already paying for, and puts it towards things we are to be tempted into paying for". Unless the cosmetics in question are fully obtainable in game, it's... less then horrible but still questionably bad business practice IMO.

With that said, I do not believe it will take away development time from content we are paying for. 1st because they have said they will be using those assets in the game in some form or another after they've had slight adjustments. And 2nd because the extra money they make off those cosmetics can go toward paying for more developers. Actually when you think about it, development time can actually speed up if they wanted, because they can afford more extra developers on top of the ones that make those assets.

If 10k people subscribe to a game that requires the subscription, that's 10,000x13$=130,000$ a month. That's the average YEARLY salary of 2 developers. That's just with 10k subscribers. MMOs are HUGE money makers when they operate on subscription.

And as I said before, I give them money. Why is my money going towards things that are meant to entice me to give MORE money, rather than towards things that entice me to play-the-game-more? It's backwards logic, the subscription platform only operates as long as players stay subscribed. So you put a cash shop in to cater to the short cut and encourage players to spend LESS time playing the game? For an upfront cost that ultimately leads (and has led) the game into early ruin.

Games that didn't start with a cash shop STILL have a subscription based platform and STILL make money, despite having been made before half the people reading this post were born. It's an incredibly stable business model for MMOs that ensures continues cash flow as long as you utilize that flow properly to encourage game play rather than encourage short cuts.

Atama

wolfwood82 wrote: »

So what you're suggesting is a spiffy cloak in the cash shop doesn't require rigging, physics programming, rigorous testing for clipping, and other activities necessary to render an active CGI component in a moving breathing game world? It just requires someone to draw it?

Of course. They already have cloaks designed. The new cloak just looks different, it doesn’t need to move or clip differently, unless it’s a dramatically different shape (and most won’t be). So yes, the effort required is almost entirely creating the appearance of the cloak.

nibiru97

wolfwood82 wrote: »

If 10k people subscribe to a game that requires the subscription, that's 10,000x13$=130,000$ a month. That's the average YEARLY salary of 2 developers. That's just with 10k subscribers. MMOs are HUGE money makers when they operate on subscription.

And as I said before, I give them money. Why is my money going towards things that are meant to entice me to give MORE money, rather than towards things that entice me to play-the-game-more? It's backwards logic, the subscription platform only operates as long as players stay subscribed. So you put a cash shop in to cater to the short cut and encourage players to spend LESS time playing the game? For an upfront cost that ultimately leads (and has led) the game into early ruin.

Games that didn't start with a cash shop STILL have a subscription based platform and STILL make money, despite having been made before half the people reading this post were born. It's an incredibly stable business model for MMOs that ensures continues cash flow as long as you utilize that flow properly to encourage game play rather than encourage short cuts.

Again I'm not a fan of a cosmetic shop, but I'm just pointing out that a cosmetic shop doesn't mean your money is going toward it. The money they make on the cosmetic shop can pay for the developers that create stuff on the cosmetic shop. Also, most people spend more time playing mmo's to improve their gear instead of cosmetics, with only a few exceptions. The cosmetics on the cash shop are purely cosmetic, not much of a short cut. I know if I get great upgrade to my gear but it doesn't look as nice as the one it replaced, I'm still going to wear the better one.

Noaani

wolfwood82 wrote: »

noaani wrote: »

wolfwood82 wrote: »

It's still a reasonable statement "How does cosmetics impact gameplay" "it takes development time away from content we're already paying for, and puts it towards things we are to be tempted into paying for". Unless the cosmetics in question are fully obtainable in game, it's... less then horrible but still questionably bad business practice IMO.

I don't know about you, but I don't want a character artist designing new combat systems.

The only thing designing character models for the shop will take away from is develooing character models for the game. Since we know the models used in the shop will filter down to the game, there is no loss of development time at all for the game.

So what you're suggesting is a spiffy cloak in the cash shop doesn't require rigging, physics programming, rigorous testing for clipping, and other activities necessary to render an active CGI component in a moving breathing game world? It just requires someone to draw it?

...

1) Why would a character artist be completely unable to participate in a non-code oriented aspect of game development such as combat systems? They can think and offer input as easily as you can without a college degree in jibberish.

2) You're ignoring a tremendous amount of code that's necessary to add 1 article of clothing to the game. Some articles of clothing are super easy, they are just textures plastered over or attached to a character model, but even adding that second qualifier "attached to" means hours (if not days) of rigorous testing to ensure clipping is minimized, or the product comes out incredibly tacky and cheap. Not necessarily something you want to "sell" to players, is it?

3) Time spent creating cash shop items is money spent creating cash shop items. It only gets returns if the cash shop items in question are desirable enough to open up the wallet, and that means EXTENSIVE time and effort. I'd rather all that time and effort went into those items, and them all being added to expansions, or dropped into the game for us to find/buy with in-game currency.

The argument is against the idea of me giving them money so that they can use that money to make a thing that is meant specifically to tempt me into giving them more money. I gave them money, they can use THAT money to pay for extra development teams and what not. That's what that money is FOR.

1; Why would anyone specialized in anything perform an other task?

When I go to a restaurant, I don't want the waiter cooking my steak. When I watch a movie, I don't want the key grip directing scenes. When I send my children to school, I don't want the janitor teaching them math.

Honestly, this statement makes me think you have never actually worked for a company before, it is incredibly naive. People get hired because they have specific skills that the company wants. You are not given a job based on a skill set so you can then go and offer your two cents to someone else that was hired for their specific skill set to do a different specialized job - you do the task you are hired to do.

2; That code is being done now. It is not ongoing.

However, should a character artist find themselves in a position where they need coding done for something new they are adding to the game, then they will be able to call on the services of a coder. However, since the item that the artist (and now coder) are working on will still eventually make it's way down to being used in regular content, the same principle applies as if it were just the artist.

3; That's the thing, those things will all make their way in to the game in those ways. This is why it isn't a waste of time in any logical manner of speaking. Without a cash shop, Intrepid make an item now, and put it in game with the next large update. With a cash shop they make the item now, put it in the cash shop with the next large update, and then two updates later they put it in to the game.

All it is, when you look at it correctly, is a delay in the time between the item being made and added to the game for us to find. That is literally what you are complaining about.

If 10k people subscribe to a game that requires the subscription, that's 10,000x13$=130,000$ a month. That's the average YEARLY salary of 2 developers. That's just with 10k subscribers. MMOs are HUGE money makers when they operate on subscription.

Spoken like someone that has literally no idea about business or management.

In an industry like MMO development, staff costs are about 30% of the over all expenses (depending on a number of factors). That isn't develops, that is over all staff costs that include developers, QA, CS, management and admin.

The single biggest cost to MMO developers is the system they use to get the game to us - whether they host it on their own servers and pay for the bandwidth that uses directly, or pay for it to be hosted elsewhere. Around half of your subscription fee will go straight to this - before anything else is even considered.

On top of staff and hosting costs, there are building costs, equipment costs, utility costs, taxes - these all need to be taken in to account and that is something you have clearly failed to do.

With the release schedule that Intrepid have signaled they want to pursue (quarterly DLC along with monthly updates), they will need a team of 50+ developers, and likely 12 - 15 QA, which will probably require a total of 5 - 6 management/admin staff.

If we take a look at those numbers now, that means the game needs 350,000 subscriptions to maintain it's expansion plans and break even (remember, DLC in Ashes is free).

That means Ashes needs to have a population the same size as Black Desert to just break even.

It's almost like you forgot that Steven has put up actual millions (tens of millions?) of his own money that he has every reason and right to expect to be able to make back if the game is successful. That means the game would need 500,000+ subscribers in order to both maintain it's post launch DLC plans and see Steven get the returns he should expect (remember, more players means higher internet/hosting costs and more taxes, even if development stays at the same level).

20 years ago, EQ had a subscription fee, but also charged for the base game and expansions.

From memory, it was $12 for the subscription, $50 for the base game and I believe $40 for most expansions.

That means your first year playing would cost you $234 and all subsequent years would cost $184 (unless it was a year with multiple expansions - the game has 25 of them and is only 20 years old).

However, since this was 20 years ago, we need to factor in inflation. When adjusted for inflation, that 1999 $234 that it cost to play EverQuest is now worth $358.69

Ashes is going to cost you $156 a year to play. And you are complaining.

Wandering Mist

@noaani I'd just like to point out that it's not uncommon for games artists to get pulled into coding if things fall behind during development, especially near the end of the project when the majority of the artwork is finished and the team are scrambling to put everything together.

Cambiguous

Noaani

Wandering Mist wrote: »

@noaani I'd just like to point out that it's not uncommon for games artists to get pulled into coding if things fall behind during development, especially near the end of the project when the majority of the artwork is finished and the team are scrambling to put everything together.

I'm going to preface the following by sayibg every studio operates differently.

However.

Neither of the two character artists working in the game industry right now that I know personally know the first thing about coding.

The game they work on has a store not all that dissimilar to what we could expect from Ashes. If they have finished what they are working on, they then start working on the next thing - if nothing is lined up, they work on new concepts.

This is the kind of people wr shoild expect to be working on shop items in Ashes.

Now, the industry does have people with multiple skill sets (Bacon comes to mind), and even if these people are originally hired as artists, they will be moved around as the needs of the peoject dictate.

However, once the game is live, people with this kind of skill set won't be relegated to making new items to put in the shop as that isn't a good use of their over all skill set.

If that were the case, the issue then would not be about the shop assets taking up development time away from the game, it would be about poor people management at Intrepid.

If the management of people and their skill sets is poor, the whole project is in for a rough time with or withour a cash shop.

WizardTim

noaani wrote: »

1; Why would anyone specialized in anything perform an other task?

Because their value to the team extends far beyond one specific job. Anyone familiar with game development could tell you this.

When I go to a restaurant, I don't want the waiter cooking my steak. When I watch a movie, I don't want the key grip directing scenes. When I send my children to school, I don't want the janitor teaching them math.

These are all false equivalencies. When I go to a restaurant, if no waiter is available I'd appreciate the greeter doing their best. When I go to a movie, I read the credits and note how many different jobs various individuals have done during production of that movie. When I send my children to school, I'd appreciate the janitor being an ear if my child absolutely positively HAS to tell an adult that there's a creepy stranger watching the kids play during recess.

I didn't suggest the art team take up coding if they don't know how. I suggested that their input and constructive criticism serves it's role in non-coding portions of the development process. In other words, they likely sit in on meetings when attempting to brainstorm new content, and will tend to offer aesthetic view points that coders and other "specialists" will typically over look.

Honestly, this statement makes me think you have never actually worked for a company before, it is incredibly naive. People get hired because they have specific skills that the company wants. You are not given a job based on a skill set so you can then go and offer your two cents to someone else that was hired for their specific skill set to do a different specialized job - you do the task you are hired to do.

This statement makes me think you are not an individual worth taking seriously at all. You did nothing but respond with fallacies, and then assume I'm being unreasonable.

The company I work for does in fact request and FOLLOW THROUGH with suggestions I offer, based purely on the fact that I offer perspectives the "specialists" don't share.

A deeper discussion is had, my problem and potential solutions, their consideration and possible reasons why it can't be done, a compromise may be reached, and we both end the discussion like mature adults who learned a thing about the other's job.

That is how EFFECTIVE companies operate, and how effective management operates.

2; That code is being done now. It is not ongoing.

However, should a character artist find themselves in a position where they need coding done for something new they are adding to the game, then they will be able to call on the services of a coder. However, since the item that the artist (and now coder) are working on will still eventually make it's way down to being used in regular content, the same principle applies as if it were just the artist.

What's your point? My point was their time is money. They're being paid to add content to the game, but then that content is locked behind a pay wall and doesn't encourage players to play the game, it encourages players to pay money and skip playing the game.

The end result is players don't work on putting together a really epic look by farming for drops or earning in-game currency to buy items from other players. Instead they fork over 10$ and then get bored because they don't have any real reason to play the game.

Why play the sport if it's so much easier to go to the sports shop and pay for the trophy?

Alternatively, you could say cosmetics are a dumb thing to put into a shop. Someone buys it once, that's it. They don't need to buy it again, and more content requires more time and money.

Throw something into the shop that serves a utility purpose. Character appearance adjustments, secondary archetype changes, rename tokens. Things that allow a player to retain the accumulated time and effort invested into a character that would normally require a re-roll.

And yes, before you strawman again, I'm already aware that secondary archetypes are planned to be changeable in-game. I'm saying stick that in the cash shop, and players would be more likely to pay for it more then once. And yes, I'm also aware that these things will likely appear in any such cash shop. I'm suggesting that they just stick to these things rather then pretty outfits that would go a lot further towards the company's bottom line as in-game collectibles players are willing to invest TIME into, and not just money.

3; That's the thing, those things will all make their way in to the game in those ways. This is why it isn't a waste of time in any logical manner of speaking. Without a cash shop, Intrepid make an item now, and put it in game with the next large update. With a cash shop they make the item now, put it in the cash shop with the next large update, and then two updates later they put it in to the game.

Please point to where I referred to it as a waste of time?

You're also assuming a future business practice. I've yet to see any other game put cash shop items into the game at a later date, and so I have no reason to believe any company would choose to do so.

For someone who speaks of logic, you sure do lack it. Why would a company who is currently getting money for "A_Thing" decide to make a routine practice of later providing said "A_Thing" for free? Especially in a couple of months? To make room for "A_New_Thing"? Why not keep "A_Thing" AND feature "A_New_Thing", and just sell both? New players who see "A_Thing" will be just as likely to buy that as "A_New_Thing".

Steven spoke of altering cash shop items and adding them into the game later, this is true. However, I point to the above rationality as to why this may not be a thing.

All it is, when you look at it correctly, is a delay in the time between the item being made and added to the game for us to find. That is literally what you are complaining about.

Well at least you figured that much out. Maybe work out the why of my reasoning rather than being overly defensive about my criticisms?

If 10k people subscribe to a game that requires the subscription, that's 10,000x13$=130,000$ a month. That's the average YEARLY salary of 2 developers. That's just with 10k subscribers. MMOs are HUGE money makers when they operate on subscription.

Spoken like someone that has literally no idea about business or management.

Spoken like someone that is literally about to completely evade the primary point with a strawman argument.

WizardTim

noaani wrote: »

Wandering Mist wrote: »

@noaani I'd just like to point out that it's not uncommon for games artists to get pulled into coding if things fall behind during development, especially near the end of the project when the majority of the artwork is finished and the team are scrambling to put everything together.

I'm going to preface the following by sayibg every studio operates differently.

Stop right there. Read what you wrote. Then re-examine your response to me. Because you're entire response centers around "This is how it's done", and the second someone else agreed with point I made it changed to "Well everyone does things differently, this is how the people >I< know do it!".

Noaani

wolfwood82 wrote: »

noaani wrote: »

Wandering Mist wrote: »

@noaani I'd just like to point out that it's not uncommon for games artists to get pulled into coding if things fall behind during development, especially near the end of the project when the majority of the artwork is finished and the team are scrambling to put everything together.

I'm going to preface the following by sayibg every studio operates differently.

Stop right there. Read what you wrote. Then re-examine your response to me. Because you're entire response centers around "This is how it's done"

No it's not.

If the studio hires someone with multiple skill sets and puts them to work creating art assets for the cash shop instead of making better use of their wide range of skills, that is an issue with the management at Intrepid, it is not an issue with the cash shop.

Since there exists the possibility (the logical option, in fact) of hiring specific, single skilled people to create art assets for the shop, the option of us saying that the people assigned to making those art assets is taking away from other aspects of the game is simply no longer open.

Should Intrepid opt for a system more akin to the former of the above two options (of which there are hundreds of shades of grey between), then you have the option of saying you don't like the way Intrepid are managing their staff, but that is it.

Since the cash shop will bring in more income that is spent on it, and the remainder will be spent developing the game itself, it is more reasonable for someone pro-cosmetic shop to complain that the game itself is taking away development time from cosmetic items than it is for someone to say the cash shop is taking away development time from the game.

WizardTim

noaani wrote: »

wolfwood82 wrote: »

noaani wrote: »

Wandering Mist wrote: »

@noaani I'd just like to point out that it's not uncommon for games artists to get pulled into coding if things fall behind during development, especially near the end of the project when the majority of the artwork is finished and the team are scrambling to put everything together.

I'm going to preface the following by sayibg every studio operates differently.

Stop right there. Read what you wrote. Then re-examine your response to me. Because you're entire response centers around "This is how it's done"

No it's not.

Yes, it's EXACTLY what your argument is about. This is how it's done, there's no alternatives, except when someone else says there are.

If the studio hires someone with multiple skill sets and puts them to work creating art assets for the cash shop instead of making better use of their wide range of skills, that is an issue with the management at Intrepid, it is not an issue with the cash shop.

This is irrelevant to my initial argument. The counter point was "artists can work on cash shop items when not working on art", my response being "artists could always be working on art for the game, or working on other aspects of the game as their skill sets allow".

You basically hijacked my response as your own statement. Yes, failing to make use of potential skill sets of artists and just using them for the cash shop crap is an issue. That I pointed out. Earlier. That you quoted.

Since there exists the possibility (the logical option, in fact) of hiring specific, single skilled people to create art assets for the shop, the option of us saying that the people assigned to making those art assets is taking away from other aspects of the game is simply no longer open.

1) We've established that you have no idea how logic works, since you routinely break it with your own statements.

2) No development team member lasts long on a team with a single skill. Most learn secondary and even tertiary skills just like many other jobs. The more versatile your work force is, the faster things get done. There is absolutely zero benefit to ever learning just one thing and only doing that one thing. NONE.

3) Even if your fallacy could hold truth (it can't, let's be double sure this is established). If I were an artist (and nothing else) and I worked on a project, I would CONSTANTLY be examining game play, lighting, NPC and environmental encounters looking for potential tweaks and changes to add depth and detail to the game itself. Noting things like "Hey, all these bandits appear to have shopped from the same Rags-R-Us store. Bandits should be mismatched, yet these guys are basically in uniform! I'll check and see if I've got time to design and art more variety of outfits for them to spawn in" or "Hey, these goblins look like the goblins I saw from the other side of the world! That doesn't make sense, how can we change them to appear to be a completely different tribe?".

Should Intrepid opt for a system more akin to the former of the above two options (of which there are hundreds of shades of grey between), then you have the option of saying you don't like the way Intrepid are managing their staff, but that is it.

My point was "I gave them money. Why is my money being used to make things that are meant to entice me to give more money? This seems like a waste of money".

It is not a staff management issue. It is a financial and time management issue. It does not matter if you hire drones specifically for the task or not. You must pay the drones, you can't NOT pay the drones. That means money is being devoted to drones to make things in the hopes that players will buy them.

Since the cash shop will bring in more income that is spent on it, and the remainder will be spent developing the game itself, it is more reasonable for someone pro-cosmetic shop to complain that the game itself is taking away development time from cosmetic items than it is for someone to say the cash shop is taking away development time from the game.

This statement... If I had read this first... could just have ended the entire conversation right there. It is so backasswards that I wouldn't have wasted time reading the rest of your nonsense. You'd just be, I don't know, a chair or something as far as I'm concerned. But sure! I've poisoned my brain already now...

No one would ever complain that more time was spent on game development over cash shop. No one with a brain anyway. Let alone anyone who was "reasonable". Your statement not only attempts to defend the cash shop (poorly), you're now placing it's importance over the game itself! That's like saying the concession stands at the theater are more important to the customers then the movie they went to see! "I don't like that theater, they spent more money on their seating and sound quality then on the popcorn machines" <You're argument in valley girl lingo.

And the production of cash shop items is purely in the HOPES that someone will buy them. Everyone who plays the game will pay X amount per month just to play the game. Significant portions of THAT income would then be made to pay sections of development teams to creating cash shop items, which only a percentage of people will pay for.

Making cash shop items costs money (all things that cost time, cost money).

Putting items into and taking items out of the cash shop costs money (all things that cost time, cost money).

Tweaking former cash shop items before putting them into the game costs money (ALL THINGS THAT COST TIME, COST MONEY).

It becomes a major question whether or not the cost of maintaining a cash shop (which also has costs associated with debugging, designing, implementing, adjusting, financial transactions, etc.) is actually worth it compared to the income it generates. Particularly when you attach the negative stigma associated with cash shops, and the general attitude of gamers being utterly sick of seeing them. Cosmetic-only or otherwise.

And in a business model where anything that appears in the cash shop will eventually appear in the game, altered or not, there's absolutely zero NEED to buy items in the cash shop. Meaning your percentage of players that purchase from it will drop significantly once they realize they can get it "free" in just a few months.

It. Makes. No. Sense. And as I pointed out, there appears to be a correlation between cash shop games and games with significantly shorter life spans. Even cash shop games that feature P2W models like exp boosts tend to only support the game for so long.

I'd be super interested in seeing detailed data that compares cost vs gain. Especially if it shows an over whelming amount of evidence that supports it being a worth while venture. I don't particularly care about the money part (I've literally dumped thousands into MMOs in the past, I won't anymore purely because they apparently don't live long anymore).

But in a game with a subscription based support system, there's no NEED for a cash shop to peddle sexy outfits. Particularly if you want to include as many gold sinks in the game to maintain a healthy game economy and urge players to, I don't know, play the game more?

Noaani

wolfwood82 wrote: »

Yes, it's EXACTLY what your argument is about.

Let's be clear about something here kid, you don't get to tell people what their argument is any more than they get to tell you what your argument is.

You can claim that someones argument makes no sense, is incoherent, is just stupid or is ill informed. You can even state that the argument the way it is presented is incoherent and ask for clarification.

What you can't do though, is tell someone with whom you are having a debate with what their argument is, just as they can't tell you what your argument is.

Now, if you'd like to present your argument again without making the arrogant assumption that you can tell me what my argument is, I'll consider a response to it if it warrants it.

Dygz

noaani wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

I am fashion over function, so... for me, the cosmetic shop is just as bad as P2W gear.
That being said, as far as I can tell... "intrusive" is just there to add emphasis.
People can nitpick and flip out if they want to.

This is the only valid reason to oppose the shop in Ashes that I've ever seen - but it is such as edge case that I would not expect a developer to consider it.

I mean, I never see anyone going in to combat in gear that is 30 levels lower than then just because it looks good (form over function) - unless the game has appearance slots.

Yep. My Bartle Score is Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
I don't play MMORPGs for the combat. Not unusual for me to have several alts running the Carebear Challenge. Typically, fashion over function means having a matching set is more important than having an uber mismatched set. But, the social statement is more important to me than the combat - the RP of being unique and starting conversations are also more important, so...
My male Tauren in WoW can only wear kilts instead of pants, so pants/leggings are never an acceptable upgrade.
My main in EQ is a Ratonga who wears starting rags and only gets armor from weapons and jewelry crafted by her Kerra master. Easy conversation starter when people see her farming mobs in 80+ level zones.
Of course, even for me, that is an atypical character.
Form over function doesn't have to mean waiting for 30 levels just due to fashion. It most typically means that viable matched sets are important than uber mis-matched sets.

The Ashes shop is fine. But, I would be fine with P2W, too.
Both have the issue of enticing me to spend cash I probably shouldn't.
But, really, just don't pay for stuff you don't want to pay for.

Child Item