Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
Edit: Payment models, P2W concept and a proposal (Topic exhausted - Please Do not reply)
Elder Soul
Member
As you all know, there are different strategies that companies often resort to in search of financing their products or making them as widely accessible.
In general, around these decisions, the discussion of the P2W concept and how healthy it can be from the consumer's point of view is usually created.
First you have to understand what P2W is.
Contrary to what many tend to say, there is no single definition of what this means.
For convenience, the word win is often attributed to everything related to the power acquired by a character and his consequent ability to measure himself against other characters in the game.
But the reality is that a video game does not revolve solely around the power of the character as many tend to affirm, if so, video games should only be processors of values and calculations in search of the best possible number.
No, video games evolved to the point of becoming more than just numbers, they are a virtual world full of stories, music, sound effects, visuals and much more.
With this in mind, excluding any of these components from the formula for success is very pretentious and unrealistic.
Not all players seek to be the best in terms of numbers, many define their success in the game in aspects such as the acquisition of each available visual option, others seek to achieve the best optimization of their time, others optimize the management and performance of its resources, etc.
Unfortunately, the abuse of those who claim to know what it means to ¨win¨ has left out these types of players who have to constantly deal with the reality of seeing how their goals within a game are used as a source of regulating income.
Cosmetics or quality of life enhancement items are not P2W!
How many times have you heard this statement?
Well, it is shown that it is not only a false statement but it is one that focuses on a single style of player and the need for companies to deal with their billing.
In the past, access to all the content of a video game required a single payment, this was affected by the incorporation of micropayment stores, season passes, alternative dlc, lootboxes, etc.
Currently, accessing all available content requires a totally exaggerated investment from the point of view of a single consumer when choosing for virtual entertainment and instead a model was chosen that ensures that no one can have it all except for a few.
A division was generated among the consumer base regarding access to content with a strong purchasing power factor, even reaching ridiculous amount of money to invest if what is sought is not to lose available content.
Let's see examples with some values for reference:
- Payment of the base game (and each future expansion) 60 usd - subscription payment 15usd per month - Without store.
In this case, through 2 types of payment, users have access to all the content available in the game.
- Free access - subscription payment 15usd per month - Micropayments store.
In this model, access to the game is made more accessible since payment for the game is omitted, but it is compensated with a payment store that makes it impossible in the future to acquire all the available content without spending a ridiculous fortune in the process.
- Free access - without subscription - Micropayments store.
In this other model, the concept of facilitating entry is extended even more, leading to permanence since the need for monthly payment is eliminated, on the contrary, all income is generated in the store making access to all available content impossible.
As can be seen, the methods used by companies in search of managing the number of potential users and their billing capacity seriously damage fundamental aspects of a video game since they feed on the exclusivity of access to basic issues such as the aesthetic appearance of the characters , pets, mounts, consumables, account level upgrades, power-ups, etc.
What I propose is the following:
Optional payment for the game 60usd (includes access to Tier I of the store) - Optional payment of 5usd per month for access to the Tier II store - Mandatory subscription payment 15usd per month - Micropayments store.
With this model, those who choose to pay for the game will have access to all the cosmetics in the store within the Tier I category.
Those who want full access (previous unlocking of Tier I) can opt for an additional payment of 5usd per month thus having access to Tier II of the store.
Those who only opt for the monthly payment will be able to make purchases of Tier I and II objects through individual payments in the store.
In this way, the objective of eliminating the barrier of incorporation of players raised by Steven is maintained and at the same time it is avoided to harm those who can opt for a more traditional model and full access to the content through an additional payment system that does not result in ridiculous values.
In general, around these decisions, the discussion of the P2W concept and how healthy it can be from the consumer's point of view is usually created.
First you have to understand what P2W is.
Contrary to what many tend to say, there is no single definition of what this means.
For convenience, the word win is often attributed to everything related to the power acquired by a character and his consequent ability to measure himself against other characters in the game.
But the reality is that a video game does not revolve solely around the power of the character as many tend to affirm, if so, video games should only be processors of values and calculations in search of the best possible number.
No, video games evolved to the point of becoming more than just numbers, they are a virtual world full of stories, music, sound effects, visuals and much more.
With this in mind, excluding any of these components from the formula for success is very pretentious and unrealistic.
Not all players seek to be the best in terms of numbers, many define their success in the game in aspects such as the acquisition of each available visual option, others seek to achieve the best optimization of their time, others optimize the management and performance of its resources, etc.
Unfortunately, the abuse of those who claim to know what it means to ¨win¨ has left out these types of players who have to constantly deal with the reality of seeing how their goals within a game are used as a source of regulating income.
Cosmetics or quality of life enhancement items are not P2W!
How many times have you heard this statement?
Well, it is shown that it is not only a false statement but it is one that focuses on a single style of player and the need for companies to deal with their billing.
In the past, access to all the content of a video game required a single payment, this was affected by the incorporation of micropayment stores, season passes, alternative dlc, lootboxes, etc.
Currently, accessing all available content requires a totally exaggerated investment from the point of view of a single consumer when choosing for virtual entertainment and instead a model was chosen that ensures that no one can have it all except for a few.
A division was generated among the consumer base regarding access to content with a strong purchasing power factor, even reaching ridiculous amount of money to invest if what is sought is not to lose available content.
Let's see examples with some values for reference:
- Payment of the base game (and each future expansion) 60 usd - subscription payment 15usd per month - Without store.
In this case, through 2 types of payment, users have access to all the content available in the game.
- Free access - subscription payment 15usd per month - Micropayments store.
In this model, access to the game is made more accessible since payment for the game is omitted, but it is compensated with a payment store that makes it impossible in the future to acquire all the available content without spending a ridiculous fortune in the process.
- Free access - without subscription - Micropayments store.
In this other model, the concept of facilitating entry is extended even more, leading to permanence since the need for monthly payment is eliminated, on the contrary, all income is generated in the store making access to all available content impossible.
As can be seen, the methods used by companies in search of managing the number of potential users and their billing capacity seriously damage fundamental aspects of a video game since they feed on the exclusivity of access to basic issues such as the aesthetic appearance of the characters , pets, mounts, consumables, account level upgrades, power-ups, etc.
What I propose is the following:
Optional payment for the game 60usd (includes access to Tier I of the store) - Optional payment of 5usd per month for access to the Tier II store - Mandatory subscription payment 15usd per month - Micropayments store.
With this model, those who choose to pay for the game will have access to all the cosmetics in the store within the Tier I category.
Those who want full access (previous unlocking of Tier I) can opt for an additional payment of 5usd per month thus having access to Tier II of the store.
Those who only opt for the monthly payment will be able to make purchases of Tier I and II objects through individual payments in the store.
In this way, the objective of eliminating the barrier of incorporation of players raised by Steven is maintained and at the same time it is avoided to harm those who can opt for a more traditional model and full access to the content through an additional payment system that does not result in ridiculous values.
0
Comments
excactly
https://knightsofember.com/forums/members/winner909098.54
The cash shop is a actual paywall for exclusive content.
In addition, my proposal does not put it behind since there is the option of being used as it is currently proposed, avoiding the payment of the base game, plus an optional I propose.
On the other hand, the proposed model, which seems to be more convenient, puts those who want to opt for a model of "access to all content" behind a pay wall, the store.
It is curious that this model of exclusion is not perceived as ¨outrageous¨.
After all, it is not an equitable model, whoever has more money and invests, the more exclusive content acquires, ¨Pay-Wall¨
Cosmetics aren’t a quantitive advantage like time savers or stat boosters or stronger weapons are.
In a game where cash shop cosmetics are exclusive recolors more than they are exclusive models, even your premise is paper thin and weak.
A completely optional cash shop with no box cost and a modest sub fee is the fairest it can get. Your suggestion requires someone pay $60 for junk they don’t want just to have access to the few things they do want.
If someone goes into an MMO thinking they will ever have every cosmetic ever in it, then to be perfectly frank, that person is an idiot.
Spend your time or spend your money, Ashes will have cosmetics for both.
My proposal is "optional" and presents 3 possible models.
Those who are not interested in cosmetics only opt for the recurring subscription payment.
Those who are exclusively interested in certain cosmetic objects can opt for the monthly subscription payment and the individual cost of the cosmetic of their choice.
Those who are interested in accessing a greater amount of the cosmetic content available can choose to pay for the game to access Tier I of the store and pay the monthly subscription.
Those who want full access to cosmetics as this represents an important factor in their gaming experience can opt for the payment of the game with access to Tier I and an additional payment to extend the access to Tier II, in addition to the subscription payment monthly.
This does not modify the current model and the freedom to determine how to acquire cosmetic objects.
The only mandatory thing would be the payment of the monthly subscription, as it is currently proposed.
The concept of "you do not have the right to access all content" was incorporated for billing purposes and as a disguised excuse for wanting to benefit users.
The reality is that there is no model that does not generate a Pay Wall and to think that the needs of other players are ridiculous, exaggerated or meaningless because they do not fit your own preferences or needs is somewhat egocentric.
If it weren't for the change of tone in the colors in both figures it would be excellent!
First suppose that the cosmetic items in the store are divided into two categories, Tier I and Tier II.
When I talk about accessing Tier I of cosmetics through the optional payment of the game, I mean full access to these cosmetics in their category without the individual payment of each one.
When I speak of extending access to Tier II, I mean by gaining access to all cosmetic content (Tier I and II) without individual payment for each.
And of course, for those who are unnecessary or simply want a particular cosmetic, they can choose to simply pay the monthly subscription and in the case of wanting to purchase the cosmetic of choice through individual and specific payment for that cosmetic.
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/SpitefulImpureCowrie-mobile.mp4
I don't know why the OP started with the pay to win topic, but most of the OP was about changing the combination of subscription fee and paying cosmetic prices to another system that some people may find better.
Fortunately, Steven has identified what he means when he says that Ashes will not be P2W.
My definition of pay-to-win is really anything that affects the in-game economy, the in-game action pool, your abilities and/or skills... In my opinion the inventory slots and the XP potions would be considered pay-to-win.[16] – Steven Sharif
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Payment_model#Pay_to_win
Additionally, I do remember Steven stating in multiple videos that pay to convenience is included as P2W, although I do not have a link.
Steven has said that the best cosmetics will be obtainable through quests and achievements.
If you think that Steven funded the game himself and the kickstarter was a way to see if the MMO market is viable, then you might realize that he's aiming on a game that everyone will enjoy and most people can afford.
More players = more subs = higher income.
I think he cares more about people playing the game than people trying to find ways to save money to be able to unlock cosmetic tiers because this will probably lead to RMT anyway.
Sorry, but the cosmetic aspect is part of a game and for many it is part of the final goal, it is meaning, fun and a way to measure yourself against other players in the same way that performance in PVE or PVP is.
To remove it and make it exclusive content accessible through additional payments and not consider it P2W is to deny that there are people who value this aspect in the game and that their gaming experience is ruined by a wall of money.
Not everyone plays to be the best player in PvP combat.
Not everyone plays to be the best player in PVE combat.
Dps, heals, mitigation, BIS gear, etc.
What I propose is a way to avoid that a fundamental aspect for many remains exclusively behind a wall of money and has more options of access at a reasonable cost.
To continue arguing that the cosmetic aspect of a video game can be exploited as it is not relevant to having a complete and fair gaming experience is absurd.
Regarding the interest of bringing more people to the game, I agree, but if you read my contributions correctly on repeated occasions I try to explain that my proposal does not remove the playing conditions currently offered, but rather complements them with two additional options for those who consider important in their gaming experience the cosmetic aspect.
In this way, people are not removed since nothing is taken away that is no longer being taken away without an additional payment, it simply offers a more balanced environment for those who are affected in their gaming experience by using the aesthetics of the game as a source of financing.
Those who do not consider it important can opt for the monthly subscription payment.
Those who want to access more aesthetic content can additionally opt for the payment of the game which would grant them access to Tier I of the store until the next expansion.
Those who want full access can opt after enabling Tier I for an additional monthly payment to access Tier II.
How does this reduce the number of potential players?
Intrepid would be billing for each user the 15usd monthly subscription plus:
- Individual purchases from the cosmetic store of those users who do not see it as something relevant but decide to selectively purchase a cosmetic.
-
- Payment of the game for access to Tier I between expansions of users who prefer it.
-
- The monthly payment for the extension to Tier II of the users who prefer it.
What can happen, that everyone chooses full access to cosmetics?
In that case Intrepid would be billing for each user about 240usd per year plus the 60usd of the base game until the next expansion, more than enough to finance the game.
From there down, those who do not opt for this model would only be paying the monthly subscription and making individual purchases in the store, which is what is currently being proposed.
I do not see unfounded money losses or reduction in the number of players.
What I do see is a reduction in the exploitation of the aesthetic aspect of the game in search of exaggerated profits at the expense of those who see their gaming experience affected.
The issue is that one cannot attribute the authority to determine what is winning, that will depend on each one and what their goals are.
Many articles have been written about it where it is evident how the industry and different media have manipulated the definitions of winning in a video game to fit their billing model by removing essential parts to turn them into exclusive objects that require additional payments.
I understand that many find it irrelevant and do not consider it P2W, I understand it because I know that everyone has their own goals and I am not the one to annul them.
What I do not understand is the inability or lack of empathy of many to understand that an essential part of video games such as personalization and aesthetic variables were taken hostage by payment stores ruining the gaming experience of many.
If the aesthetic aspect of a game is not important, why do they have a character creation section so that the user can choose the aesthetic aspect at the beginning?
If the aesthetic aspect is not important, why so much effort to achieve a visually captivating game?
And last but not least, if the aesthetic aspect is not important or relevant, how does this manage to generate so many sales of micropayments around the world generating billions?
Simple answer, aesthetics in video games does matter and if you have to pay to access it is, at least for me, a clear P2W.
Again, thank you for your deep explanation and presenting your side thoroughly. I just can't support it.
Thanks for comment!
It is not necessary to agree, the mere fact of not being but understanding a different opinion without needing to feel that you have to cancel it or make it look ridiculous is great.
It is rare these days to find contributions of this style.
I perfectly understand your point of view and that of many others, simply with my contribution I try to show that there are other approaches and perceptions about what is right or wrong.
It's been a pleasure.
It's a decent suggestion I think, although wouldn't this only really make sense if you made your payment decision at launch and then never changed it?
If I rather want to just pay the $15 a month and pay for what I want in the cash shop individually, but then a couple of months after release I want to change my payment plan. Could I then in that case, all of a sudden get access to all the stuff in the cash shop since release, even though I just started paying the extra $5? And could I just change payment plan again right after and go back to $15?
Same thing with someone who starts playing 2 years after release, that's one hell of a deal.
If it's somehow locked to your initial decision, that would be weird too.
In the end, unless you can solve those issues, it does fall a little short of a realistic option, and the current $15 + cash shop buys is the more realistic one.
I completely disagree. The reason why most people don't see cosmetic items as P2W is because there is no progression within paid for cosmetics. This means outside of what one player subjectively like there is no difference in-between.
You bring up the point that for some players collecting all cosmetics is a form of end game which is actually true. Typically though these players focus on the cosmetics you can through achievements in game. Despite this the cosmetics you can get through the cash shop are completely different from the ones tied to achievements and you cannot pay for an achievement.
You are conflating P2W, and you are trying to add a significant layer of complexity that this game does not need.
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
However, since it has been stated since kickstarter that Ashes will have a cosmetic store, the few of you that consider this to be the goal can simply just assume that for you, the game is pay to win.
That isn't Intrepid going back on what they have said, it is simply a small minority of people using an odd measure of success to determine "winning".
If you can acquire Cosmetics purely from ingame work as well and that's the case in AoC then everything is fine.
I dont see a difference between just having cosmetics for $$ and your model where you pay a large sum upfront to have access for the very same thing.
If i was a company using your model. Then i would set my Tier I cosmetics so that they would be exactly worth 60$ and not a cent more. So either way someone spends 60$ directly to buy the Cosmetics or 60$ to buy access to the cosmetic they end up with the same ammount of cosmetics.
the 5$ monthly is even better as it grantees that i keep getting my money. The players who would have spend only 25$ once for a certain cosmetic may give me 60$ a year so that's a clear win for the company.
In the end your suggestion looks worse from a consumer perspective. At least it looks like that to me.
It would also put off people as paying 60$ upfront for access to cosmetic.
Just keep it as it is.
The Model AoC is planing to do looks really really great.
The no box price will bring a lot more people to the game.
It even allows them to give free trials if the population takes a hit.
The only downsite are cosmetics that are optional and steven even said that you will be able to farm some cosmetics ingame.
I mean unless the game has rankings for cosmetics leaderboards, loot drops, or cosmetics gave you a flamboyant shine to blind the other players through the screen in pvp
I get you want your character to look good (everyone does) but Steven has already addressed that crappy armors wont be default, or that costumes/skins will be part of the base game. Now wether they look as good as the ingame store for cosmetics is completely subjective to each person. And also speculative until we see more concepts of the base game armor to costumes ingame
Either way.... P2W cant be applied to every single thing you want to apply it to. You should probably use the term Pay to Look good.
If thats the concern you have then thats what you should specify because trying to hide it behind P2W veils is extremely misleading
Since MMOs don't really have a set "win" condition, some people consider cosmetics/fashion to be their own specific "win" condition. And thus, because you can buy cosmetics, they use the simple silly logic of that being "pay 2 win."
Don't try and understand these people. They tend to use their silly logic for many other things, too.
I love the people who are against P2W, but they do not have a realistic understanding of it. @StevenSharif has already stated his version, and Intrepid is doing a wonderful job on creating it.
If the OP wants to play a game with their way of thinking, drop at least $30 million and create your own. Then you have final say.
What? I suppose I could be wrong on my own thought processes, but I'm pretty sure I just called people thinking cosmetics are "pay-2-win" as being a silly concept...
Unless you were doing the same thing I was, and the "you" in your post wasn't in reference to me.
The reality is that while for people like you it is not P2W, for people like me it is.
And that's okay, we don't have to think the same.
Let's see what the cambridge dictionary says about the word win:
- ¨to achieve first position and / or get a prize in a competition, election, fight, etc¨.
- ¨to receive something positive, such as approval, loyalty, or love because you have earned it¨.
- ¨an occasion when someone wins a game or competition¨.
- ¨to defeat a competitor, or to achieve first position or get a prize in a competition¨.
- ¨to be the best in a situation where several people, organizations, etc. are competing¨.
- ¨to succeed in getting something that other people, organizations, etc. are also trying to get¨.
- ¨to receive approval, support, etc. for something, especially when you have made a big effort to get it¨.
- ¨to get advantages from a situation¨.
- ¨a successful attempt at achieving something such as a prize or reward¨.
As you can see, some definitions may fit those who defend the position that cosmetics is not a P2W, while others defend the position that it is.
Why do the packs contain exclusive items, only for those who contribute large amounts of extra money?
To reward those who contribute economically with items that only they can use and show to other players, the more money, the more exclusive items.
If these Packs didn't contain exclusive items, would people still buy them?
Maybe some would, but surely the vast majority would not and that is why these objects are included, to reward or give a level of distinction to those who invest extra amounts of money.
Why would a player pay extra to access exclusive aesthetic content if it is not relevant?
Because they do, they are a way of demonstrating a higher status than those who do not have it, a reminder that they occupy a special place and were recognized for that.
They are a trophy, a prize but not for their performance in the game but for their ability to invest money.
What would happen to other users who would like to access these cosmetics because it is relevant to them, because they want to receive the same approval or support for something special and the feeling of success when acquiring them?
Well, they should cross a money barrier imposed between their goal and said objects since they cannot be obtained within the game, similar options yes, but not the same.
P-2-W.
So to determine what is winning for someone you have to have money?
Someone can have money, create their own project and determine the bases on what is right or wrong, however that does not give them the absolute power to determine what the perception that other people should have about it.
I fully understand that for Steven the model he offers is considered non-P2W, I understand and respect it, it is his perspective.
I understand that also within that line of thought, he uses cosmetic objects as a means of rewarding or distinguishing users who make large contributions of extra money, after all once the foundations have been laid that cosmetic objects are not a form of P2W it is logical think that they use them that way.
My contribution simply tries to expose that there are users who do not see it that way.
I also understand that it is a business which needs to generate profits to sustain, grow and expand generating quality content.
But that doesn't take away from the unfortunate fact that to do so they've taken one of the basics of a game to remove it from the success equation and turn it into a way of billing.
I regret that you feel attacked to the point of having to personally degrade whoever tries to expose this reality, but no matter how many words of disqualification you use against me or anyone who thinks the same, you will never be able to change the reality of the facts presented.
If the advantage cannot be quantified, it cannot be considered a P2W mechanic, which is a term specific to games.
I can quantify the advantage of buying inventory slots. I can quantify the advantage of buying %stat boosters. I can quantify the advantage of time savers.
There is no possible way to quantify the difference between cosmetics from the game and cosmetics from the store. It’s entirely subjective. And it’s no more P2W than some buying multiple accounts to have every racial style of apartment, purely aesthetic based and unnecessary.
You personally can have goals that have no actual game impact, that doesn’t mean having to pay to achieve that game-unrelated goal is P2W.
In fact, it can be quantified.
If my goal is to acquire all versions of cosmetic items in the game, it is clear that those that are hidden behind an additional payment represent a P2W.
It is quantifiable from the moment they can be used within the game.
It is quantifiable from the moment they cease to be part of the number of cosmetics available without prior payment.
Cosmetics do have an impact within the game, the simple fact of showing them to other players who cannot access them has a visual impact, a differentiation, a clear call that says, I have it and you do not, I was rewarded for money with something that you can not acquire in the game, similar yes, but this specifically will never be part of your cosmetic options.
You have a rather large misunderstanding of what quantifiable means.
That costume you buy from the store, one person might look at it and get jealous, another person might not even really notice it, and another person may think it looks like crap. Everything about cosmetics is based on opinion and it’s impossible to quantify something that’s entirely subjective.
Your game closet has zero functional impact on anyone else. You can’t win in PvP with it, you can’t run the market with it, you can’t clear raids faster with it. No one is taking your “cosmetics are P2W to me” comment seriously because they’re absurd. There is no quantifiable advantage, there’s not even an advantage at all because cosmetics have ZERO impact on gameplay. That’s the whole point. Without an impact on gameplay, it isn’t P2W.
That is because in your mentality of what it means to win the cosmetic aspect is not present and I understand it.
It is impossible to take into account something that from the beginning is eliminated from the list of important or significant things.
But as I said on other occasions that is not the case of all users within an MMORPG, to cite an example, my case.
As I already mentioned, not everyone seeks to be the best in PvP, or in PvE events, trade, etc.
For others, achieving the widest variety of visuals can be an in-game goal and a way to win.
In that case, seeing another player with objects that are impossible to obtain without heavy investments of money has an impact on its gameplay.
A fundamental part such as the visual aspect cannot be eliminated from the whole.
Of course, for the purposes of collection and financing, this section of video games was taken to exploit them as a source of income, that does not make the cosmetic aspect irrelevant, only convenient to be used arguing that it does not actually have an impact on the gaming experience .
As I also commented previously, I understand the need to generate income, this does not mean that the chosen way to do it does not harm the gaming experience of some and their goal of winning.
While I find your entire premise to be false overall, your initial idea would also have to be considered "pay-2-win," in the other direction, by your own logic.
Your extra monthly fee for access to all the cosmetics on the store will continually be growing in value over time as more things are added to the shop. Someone that picks out bits and pieces to buy individually will basically always be paying significantly more, for less.
You would have to have anyone wanting access to your "tiers" of the store pay a monthly fee that is always rising in cost. That cost would have to account for, at the very least, the average number of cosmetics people buy individually, as well as the total number of items available in the shop. If it didn't then anyone paying that fee would be "paying 2 win" over anyone that bought things individually.