We're arguing here in a circle. I'm no fan of ZoS so I'm not gonna defend them. They've made bad choices and some I dont remember well and some I do very well.
I'm here for AoC though because the conditions here, the company behind it, and the game ideals are very different.
Cosmetic shop as @Atama mentioned isnt going to go. Its like the node system for AoC. Its being built with a core design integrated with the game. So yes AoC cosmetic shop is a necessity. Its not like a background to change on a desktop.
Unless you generate revenue in the same way cosmetics do, its not going to happen. And definitely not without royally angering the community 3years on right now.
And also discrediting their entire word. Really bad way to start a company saying their aren't like the others is what you're suggesting simply out of rather selfish desire.
I dont neccessarily care that you want to aquire every cosmetic in the game. Its just not honest to call it pay to win. Because it fundamentally and objectively isnt.
I've seen real pay to win, on my death screens. If someone wants a rainbow shining out of their ass they want to pay for, I'm all for if it helps keep the game healthy on revenue to keep the other trash out.
While I acknowledge Steven's effort to minimize the impact of the items for sale to avoid the P2W effect, this does not include a large number of players who are affected by the presence of extra payouts.
The shocking effect of the "old school" fades little by little.
And this thread in the forum is simply that, the expression of a user attracted by promises that from their perspective are not fulfilled and wants to convey it.
Does this mean that Steven has to change the chosen model?
It's his choice, not mine or yours.
His project, his ambitions, his conditions.
If he determines that it should be, fine.
If he determines that he should change it, fine.
After all, the forum is just that, a place to comment, not a jury whose members must render a final verdict.
What you have to acknowledge is that Steven can’t either. Cosmetics that were marketed as exclusive were already sold to players, they have been for years now. If Intrepid suddenly started making them show up in the game, that’s false advertising and they are vulnerable to lawsuits. Do you want IS to turn into another CIG and become a laughingstock in the gaming world?
You’re presenting these ideas as if you’re just making a reasonable proposal and it’s up to Steven to decide. But it’s not, unless there is access to a time machine what you’re asking for isn’t possible.
Basically, to use your own words, it was his choice and it’s done and set in stone. So what is the point of this thread?
Why would people file a lawsuit when they acknowledge that their contributions were to "support" the development of the video game?
Why sue when the cosmetic benefits purchased are just "pixels" that have no weight in the game and make no difference?
What's the problem with such items being added to in-game rewards if they are not a determining factor in the "winning" aspect?
¨They're just cosmetics¨
Users would keep their alpha and beta testing participation privileges and keep their cosmetic rewards.
Why would it be inconvenient if another player gets the same objects while playing, if they are not important, if the true center of importance revolves around other factors?
I think you're grossly underestimating the issue with a developer ensuring a kickstarter legal promise....Its very dangerous waters to break a legal promise.
Not to mention the guys that spent 5-10 thousand dollars on the Order of the Phoenix initiative (I think thats what it was called anyway) they are signifigant backers that paid a lot of real money and they accepted some small tokens, early access, and a shiny cosmetic skin all to help support ashes and get the word out for this beautiful vision.
I'm 100% ok they they get a bit of an extra shiny showing that they did so. Its cool that they did that and theres nothing wrong with them having a tiny exclusive for cashing up 10,000 dollars to show that they helped bring AoC to life.
It's really not that light of an issue. Another problem then turns into this - If AoC were to go back on their word with the Cosmetics, and even if the majority of backers were ok with letting those skins into the world, everything ashes has said or promised becomes worthless and players wouldnt touch this game from all the negative reactions that would follow
I fully understand the consequences of not fulfilling the agreed promises.
Now, suppose that the game after its launch does not have the expected success, the number of subscribed players does not meet the demands and the sales of cosmetics do not compensate for said lack of income.
What are the alternatives?
A - Cancel the game.
B - Leave it in maintenance mode without major updates.
C - Remove the subscription (Free to Play) and exploit the store to the maximum.
In the case of option A, the valuable cosmetics of the 10K pack and all the rest are forgotten, like pixels fading into thin air.
In the case of option B, after not being successful and subsequently presenting a lack of content, a few current subscriptions can be maintained and the valuable cosmetics of the 10K pack and all the others will walk through a sparsely populated game world and with a lack of relevant content.
In case C, sustaining the game through the store takes it to the extreme of what was promised by dabbling in items of convenience, power-ups, upgrades, etc. The cosmetic stuff of the 10K pack and all the others will be in the middle of the P2W party.
It is clear that all the agreed premises and their permanence in time are based on a single result, the indisputable success of the game.
Eliminating paid objects as exclusive content to use in the game, avoiding harming those who consider it relevant in their gaming experience can be a solution, or may be not.
Keeping the current model may be the solution, or may be not.
That is why I insist, it is Steven and his team who have the last word, it is not my intention to pretend that it is in my capacity to determine what is best to achieve success, simply to share my perspective of success which despite not being taken into account can reflect a different vision which at some point ends up being relevant.
Your options are objectively wrong though.
In my opinion theres no question Ashes will struggle a little at the start of the game, its a very new studio, with a very unique take on PvXSandbox/Sandthempark world. People will be cautious at first. But hell ESO was by far the worst launch MMO game I remember and yet now its one of the top three in the world. I dont really care about launch unless its something super major, because its always a mess no matter what type of game.
And AoC is almost a perfect game conceptually speaking.
But that doesnt make legal real world issues dismissive or the principals behind breaking your word with the cosmetic issue.
Dont you get thats half the reason people looked into AoC because Steven and Intrepid are some of the biggest Advocates against the AAA studios constantly breaking their word and doing things they promised not to do?
Why do you think so many people have pledged so much into this games vision?
Its not hard to see.
And the cosmestics being cosmetic isnt the issue
Its funding, its profits for the employees and to make room and grow without preying on players with massive box costs for every DLC/expansion/in game advantages/ lACTUAL p2w items
The truth is buddy that people dont give a shit if cosmetics are part of shop. And most people realize if you want to make an MMO stable, successful, and profitable enough to
keep content going WITHOUT introducing REAL ACTUAL pay to win in this day and age, a cosmetic shop is kind of given.
The fact these devs only have skins for mounts (and not actual mounts making you actually work ingame for it) is amazing.
And the fact other cosmetics will already have equivelants is another thing thats amazing. And the best cosmetics (besides probably the Avatar one) will already be part of the endgame rewards is amazing.
MMO's are expensive dude, its not just a disc game anymore with content.
Cosmetics will never affect yours, or other peoples gameplay, its just another role play aspect for looks.
It is unequevocally not Pay to Win. Its just silly to say otherwise despite your objections.
¨But hell ESO was by far the worst launch MMO game I remember and yet now its one of the top three in the world¨
I was there, since beta.
Do you remember which was the model with which it was launched and with which it ended up to this date?
Do you remember the promised payment and content delivery models as they ended?
Do you remember the promise that the Plus model would contain all the content in the future and then the DLC appeared as an additional payment even within the PLUS plan?
It is exactly what I explained a little while ago in my other post.
The impending failure leads to drastic changes or extinction.
Better to get ahead and avoid forcing fate.
I played ESO in beta too! I was also a preorder purchaser and a subscriber early on. I lost interest after a while though, for me the character options were garbage. There were a few cookie cutter builds that worked and everything else stank. That’s not what I looking for in an MMO.
Which is a shame, I really loved running around on my black panther mount and hiding from guards after stealing from a shopkeeper. Also searching everywhere for skyshards. There were some fun times eventually ruined by an uninspiring advancement path that I grew tired of.
And surely you have acquired your little monkey for participating.
And the game went from being a mandatory monthly subscription and payment of the base game and future expansions to free to play with a cosmetic store, seasonal lootboxes and convenience objects.
When all the content was promised for the future within the ESO PLUS plan and then the famous debate about ¨it is a DLCs only in the pack, not the expansions¨ appeared and began to be charged separately, even for those who had the PLUS plan active.
Promises, changes.
Bad comparison, the people pushing development decisions for ESO are ethically bankrupt. That game currently sustains itself off the IP alone.
I wish you were wrong. XD
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
While I acknowledge Steven's effort to minimize the impact of the items for sale to avoid the P2W effect, this does not include a large number of players who are affected by the presence of extra payouts.
The shocking effect of the "old school" fades little by little.
And this thread in the forum is simply that, the expression of a user attracted by promises that from their perspective are not fulfilled and wants to convey it.
Does this mean that Steven has to change the chosen model?
It's his choice, not mine or yours.
His project, his ambitions, his conditions.
If he determines that it should be, fine.
If he determines that he should change it, fine.
After all, the forum is just that, a place to comment, not a jury whose members must render a final verdict.
What you have to acknowledge is that Steven can’t either. Cosmetics that were marketed as exclusive were already sold to players, they have been for years now. If Intrepid suddenly started making them show up in the game, that’s false advertising and they are vulnerable to lawsuits. Do you want IS to turn into another CIG and become a laughingstock in the gaming world?
You’re presenting these ideas as if you’re just making a reasonable proposal and it’s up to Steven to decide. But it’s not, unless there is access to a time machine what you’re asking for isn’t possible.
Basically, to use your own words, it was his choice and it’s done and set in stone. So what is the point of this thread?
Why would people file a lawsuit when they acknowledge that their contributions were to "support" the development of the video game?
Why sue when the cosmetic benefits purchased are just "pixels" that have no weight in the game and make no difference?
What's the problem with such items being added to in-game rewards if they are not a determining factor in the "winning" aspect?
¨They're just cosmetics¨
Users would keep their alpha and beta testing participation privileges and keep their cosmetic rewards.
Why would it be inconvenient if another player gets the same objects while playing, if they are not important, if the true center of importance revolves around other factors?
I think you're grossly underestimating the issue with a developer ensuring a kickstarter legal promise....Its very dangerous waters to break a legal promise.
Not to mention the guys that spent 5-10 thousand dollars on the Order of the Phoenix initiative (I think thats what it was called anyway) they are signifigant backers that paid a lot of real money and they accepted some small tokens, early access, and a shiny cosmetic skin all to help support ashes and get the word out for this beautiful vision.
I'm 100% ok they they get a bit of an extra shiny showing that they did so. Its cool that they did that and theres nothing wrong with them having a tiny exclusive for cashing up 10,000 dollars to show that they helped bring AoC to life.
It's really not that light of an issue. Another problem then turns into this - If AoC were to go back on their word with the Cosmetics, and even if the majority of backers were ok with letting those skins into the world, everything ashes has said or promised becomes worthless and players wouldnt touch this game from all the negative reactions that would follow
I fully understand the consequences of not fulfilling the agreed promises.
Now, suppose that the game after its launch does not have the expected success, the number of subscribed players does not meet the demands and the sales of cosmetics do not compensate for said lack of income.
What are the alternatives?
A - Cancel the game.
B - Leave it in maintenance mode without major updates.
C - Remove the subscription (Free to Play) and exploit the store to the maximum.
In the case of option A, the valuable cosmetics of the 10K pack and all the rest are forgotten, like pixels fading into thin air.
In the case of option B, after not being successful and subsequently presenting a lack of content, a few current subscriptions can be maintained and the valuable cosmetics of the 10K pack and all the others will walk through a sparsely populated game world and with a lack of relevant content.
In case C, sustaining the game through the store takes it to the extreme of what was promised by dabbling in items of convenience, power-ups, upgrades, etc. The cosmetic stuff of the 10K pack and all the others will be in the middle of the P2W party.
It is clear that all the agreed premises and their permanence in time are based on a single result, the indisputable success of the game.
Eliminating paid objects as exclusive content to use in the game, avoiding harming those who consider it relevant in their gaming experience can be a solution, or may be not.
Keeping the current model may be the solution, or may be not.
That is why I insist, it is Steven and his team who have the last word, it is not my intention to pretend that it is in my capacity to determine what is best to achieve success, simply to share my perspective of success which despite not being taken into account can reflect a different vision which at some point ends up being relevant.
Your options are objectively wrong though.
In my opinion theres no question Ashes will struggle a little at the start of the game, its a very new studio, with a very unique take on PvXSandbox/Sandthempark world. People will be cautious at first. But hell ESO was by far the worst launch MMO game I remember and yet now its one of the top three in the world. I dont really care about launch unless its something super major, because its always a mess no matter what type of game.
And AoC is almost a perfect game conceptually speaking.
But that doesnt make legal real world issues dismissive or the principals behind breaking your word with the cosmetic issue.
Dont you get thats half the reason people looked into AoC because Steven and Intrepid are some of the biggest Advocates against the AAA studios constantly breaking their word and doing things they promised not to do?
Why do you think so many people have pledged so much into this games vision?
Its not hard to see.
And the cosmestics being cosmetic isnt the issue
Its funding, its profits for the employees and to make room and grow without preying on players with massive box costs for every DLC/expansion/in game advantages/ lACTUAL p2w items
The truth is buddy that people dont give a shit if cosmetics are part of shop. And most people realize if you want to make an MMO stable, successful, and profitable enough to
keep content going WITHOUT introducing REAL ACTUAL pay to win in this day and age, a cosmetic shop is kind of given.
The fact these devs only have skins for mounts (and not actual mounts making you actually work ingame for it) is amazing.
And the fact other cosmetics will already have equivelants is another thing thats amazing. And the best cosmetics (besides probably the Avatar one) will already be part of the endgame rewards is amazing.
MMO's are expensive dude, its not just a disc game anymore with content.
Cosmetics will never affect yours, or other peoples gameplay, its just another role play aspect for looks.
It is unequevocally not Pay to Win. Its just silly to say otherwise despite your objections.
¨But hell ESO was by far the worst launch MMO game I remember and yet now its one of the top three in the world¨
I was there, since beta.
Do you remember which was the model with which it was launched and with which it ended up to this date?
Do you remember the promised payment and content delivery models as they ended?
Do you remember the promise that the Plus model would contain all the content in the future and then the DLC appeared as an additional payment even within the PLUS plan?
It is exactly what I explained a little while ago in my other post.
The impending failure leads to drastic changes or extinction.
Better to get ahead and avoid forcing fate.
Ok I'm gonna give some clarification here, even though you picked only one sentece out my entire post there XD very sneaky of you to skirt around my other points. But ignoring them wont change what people read.
On to the one sentence about ESO that you're trying to use as proof and suggest that Ashes will do....
1.The only business part of eso that changed was adding a cosmetic shop at all, and the changes to allowing it to be free to play with a base game buy (box cost).
The dlc there is still free to those with a subcription? So Im not seeing what this part is of your argument about cosmetics being p2w. Unless you refer to the chapters in which yes you're correct. That pissed off alot of people and many people left for it.
-Ashes already has and explained why their shop is cosmetic and why its there at all and is important and vital to how it plans to generate and maintain revenue along with its sub. Along with already created legal promises. The chances they'll add any pay to win is astronomicaly low, with how much they have planned in advancement and foreknowledge about how games like ESO failed in some regards there is likewise important.
This has nothing to do with cosmetics not being p2w
2. ESO's company ZoS also answer to a board and a parent company Bethesda both in regards to lore (being elder scrolls) and in business for the games revenue. They are subservient to bethesda's decisions for this reason since bethesda owns Elder Scrolls and is the parent company of Zenimax. Even if they wanted to do a different thing, the board would override or fire the devs.
-Ashes does not and is fully independent being built by one of the most anti-p2w individuals in MMO's
This still doesnt have anything to do with cosmetics still not being p2w
3. To be fair to ZoS, they did not introduce any pay to win in my opinion. They did introduce controversial loot crates (very predatory I'll admit) and they did change from a subscription model to a buy-to-play model with the Sub giving them access to all DLC. And the Shop expanded to letting players pay to aquire fully maxed skillines if they were completed on another character. But they still had to be already completed content by the players. A slight difference, but this is where ESO has gotten close to pay to win since there is no in-game method to speed level skill lines within the game.
- Ashes is already planned and examined this area and is already funded whereas ESO was basically bailed out by Bethesda because they didnt plan or have the same level of funding at the start as Ashes
This also still has nothing with cosmetics still not being p2w
4. Again none of this really relates to what I posted in the previous comment since you only picked one sentence out of my other post. I'm just humoring you because this conversation is mildly fascinating to me.
It's like examining a brand new species
Cosmetics give no p2w advantage. Its just an extra pretty skirt for you to wear ingame with slightly different colored pixels
Personally I think you could say the pay for convenience skill lines and skyshards are a little P2W. I reread your post and saw that you did say that. My bad I missed it on my first read through.
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
While I acknowledge Steven's effort to minimize the impact of the items for sale to avoid the P2W effect, this does not include a large number of players who are affected by the presence of extra payouts.
The shocking effect of the "old school" fades little by little.
And this thread in the forum is simply that, the expression of a user attracted by promises that from their perspective are not fulfilled and wants to convey it.
Does this mean that Steven has to change the chosen model?
It's his choice, not mine or yours.
His project, his ambitions, his conditions.
If he determines that it should be, fine.
If he determines that he should change it, fine.
After all, the forum is just that, a place to comment, not a jury whose members must render a final verdict.
What you have to acknowledge is that Steven can’t either. Cosmetics that were marketed as exclusive were already sold to players, they have been for years now. If Intrepid suddenly started making them show up in the game, that’s false advertising and they are vulnerable to lawsuits. Do you want IS to turn into another CIG and become a laughingstock in the gaming world?
You’re presenting these ideas as if you’re just making a reasonable proposal and it’s up to Steven to decide. But it’s not, unless there is access to a time machine what you’re asking for isn’t possible.
Basically, to use your own words, it was his choice and it’s done and set in stone. So what is the point of this thread?
Why would people file a lawsuit when they acknowledge that their contributions were to "support" the development of the video game?
Why sue when the cosmetic benefits purchased are just "pixels" that have no weight in the game and make no difference?
What's the problem with such items being added to in-game rewards if they are not a determining factor in the "winning" aspect?
¨They're just cosmetics¨
Users would keep their alpha and beta testing participation privileges and keep their cosmetic rewards.
Why would it be inconvenient if another player gets the same objects while playing, if they are not important, if the true center of importance revolves around other factors?
I think you're grossly underestimating the issue with a developer ensuring a kickstarter legal promise....Its very dangerous waters to break a legal promise.
Not to mention the guys that spent 5-10 thousand dollars on the Order of the Phoenix initiative (I think thats what it was called anyway) they are signifigant backers that paid a lot of real money and they accepted some small tokens, early access, and a shiny cosmetic skin all to help support ashes and get the word out for this beautiful vision.
I'm 100% ok they they get a bit of an extra shiny showing that they did so. Its cool that they did that and theres nothing wrong with them having a tiny exclusive for cashing up 10,000 dollars to show that they helped bring AoC to life.
It's really not that light of an issue. Another problem then turns into this - If AoC were to go back on their word with the Cosmetics, and even if the majority of backers were ok with letting those skins into the world, everything ashes has said or promised becomes worthless and players wouldnt touch this game from all the negative reactions that would follow
I fully understand the consequences of not fulfilling the agreed promises.
Now, suppose that the game after its launch does not have the expected success, the number of subscribed players does not meet the demands and the sales of cosmetics do not compensate for said lack of income.
What are the alternatives?
A - Cancel the game.
B - Leave it in maintenance mode without major updates.
C - Remove the subscription (Free to Play) and exploit the store to the maximum.
In the case of option A, the valuable cosmetics of the 10K pack and all the rest are forgotten, like pixels fading into thin air.
In the case of option B, after not being successful and subsequently presenting a lack of content, a few current subscriptions can be maintained and the valuable cosmetics of the 10K pack and all the others will walk through a sparsely populated game world and with a lack of relevant content.
In case C, sustaining the game through the store takes it to the extreme of what was promised by dabbling in items of convenience, power-ups, upgrades, etc. The cosmetic stuff of the 10K pack and all the others will be in the middle of the P2W party.
It is clear that all the agreed premises and their permanence in time are based on a single result, the indisputable success of the game.
Eliminating paid objects as exclusive content to use in the game, avoiding harming those who consider it relevant in their gaming experience can be a solution, or may be not.
Keeping the current model may be the solution, or may be not.
That is why I insist, it is Steven and his team who have the last word, it is not my intention to pretend that it is in my capacity to determine what is best to achieve success, simply to share my perspective of success which despite not being taken into account can reflect a different vision which at some point ends up being relevant.
Your options are objectively wrong though.
In my opinion theres no question Ashes will struggle a little at the start of the game, its a very new studio, with a very unique take on PvXSandbox/Sandthempark world. People will be cautious at first. But hell ESO was by far the worst launch MMO game I remember and yet now its one of the top three in the world. I dont really care about launch unless its something super major, because its always a mess no matter what type of game.
And AoC is almost a perfect game conceptually speaking.
But that doesnt make legal real world issues dismissive or the principals behind breaking your word with the cosmetic issue.
Dont you get thats half the reason people looked into AoC because Steven and Intrepid are some of the biggest Advocates against the AAA studios constantly breaking their word and doing things they promised not to do?
Why do you think so many people have pledged so much into this games vision?
Its not hard to see.
And the cosmestics being cosmetic isnt the issue
Its funding, its profits for the employees and to make room and grow without preying on players with massive box costs for every DLC/expansion/in game advantages/ lACTUAL p2w items
The truth is buddy that people dont give a shit if cosmetics are part of shop. And most people realize if you want to make an MMO stable, successful, and profitable enough to
keep content going WITHOUT introducing REAL ACTUAL pay to win in this day and age, a cosmetic shop is kind of given.
The fact these devs only have skins for mounts (and not actual mounts making you actually work ingame for it) is amazing.
And the fact other cosmetics will already have equivelants is another thing thats amazing. And the best cosmetics (besides probably the Avatar one) will already be part of the endgame rewards is amazing.
MMO's are expensive dude, its not just a disc game anymore with content.
Cosmetics will never affect yours, or other peoples gameplay, its just another role play aspect for looks.
It is unequevocally not Pay to Win. Its just silly to say otherwise despite your objections.
¨But hell ESO was by far the worst launch MMO game I remember and yet now its one of the top three in the world¨
I was there, since beta.
Do you remember which was the model with which it was launched and with which it ended up to this date?
Do you remember the promised payment and content delivery models as they ended?
Do you remember the promise that the Plus model would contain all the content in the future and then the DLC appeared as an additional payment even within the PLUS plan?
It is exactly what I explained a little while ago in my other post.
The impending failure leads to drastic changes or extinction.
Better to get ahead and avoid forcing fate.
Ok I'm gonna give some clarification here, even though you picked only one sentece out my entire post there XD very sneaky of you to skirt around my other points. But ignoring them wont change what people read.
On to the one sentence about ESO that you're trying to use as proof and suggest that Ashes will do....
1.The only business part of eso that changed was adding a cosmetic shop at all, and the changes to allowing it to be free to play with a base game buy (box cost).
The dlc there is still free to those with a subcription? Im not seeing what this part is. Unless you refer to the chapters in which yes you're correct. That pisses off alot of people and many people left for it.
-Ashes already has and explained why their shop is cosmetic and why its there at all and is important and vital to how it plans to generate and maintain revenue along with its sub. Along with already created legal promises. The chances they'll add any pay to win, with how much they have planned in advancement and foreknowledge about how games like ESO failed in some regards there is likewise important.
2. ESO's company ZoS also answer to a board and a parent company Bethesda both in regards to lore (being elder scrolls) and in business for the games revenue. They are subservient to bethesda's decisions for this reason since bethesda owns Elder Scrolls and is the parent company of Zenimax. Even if they wanted to do a different thing, the board would override or fire the devs.
-Ashes does not and is fully independent being build by one of the most anti-p2w individuals in MMO's
3. To be fair to ZoS, they did not introduce any pay to win in my opinion. They did introduce controversial loot crates (very predatory I'll admit) and they did change from a subcription model to a buy-to-play model withe the Sub giving them access to all DLC. And the Shop expanded to letting players pay to aquire fully maxed skillines if they were completed on anther character. But they still had to be already completed content by the players. A slight difference but this is where ESO has gotten close to pay to win since there is no in-game method to speed level skill lines within the game.
- Ashes is already planned and examined this area and is already funded whereas ESO was basically bailed out by Bethesda because they didnt plan or have the same level of funding at the start as Ashes
4. Again none of this really relates to what I posted in previous comment since you only picked one sentence out of my other post. I'm just humoring you because this conversation is mildly fascinating to me.
Its like examing a brand new species
¨1.The only business part of eso that changed was adding a cosmetic shop at all, and the changes to allowing it to be free to play with a base game buy (box cost)¨
Nope.
1- Purchase of the game and Mandatory suscription at release.
2 - Buy to Play with cosmetic microtransactions and the option to suscribe to ESO PLUS to get all future content for free and some coins for the shop, unlimited storage for crating materials, 10% increaso for gold an exp, exclusivity to use dyes, double bank space, 10% increase for research and inspiration, and more.
3 - At some point they star charging apart the cost for Expansions to ESO PLUS members arguing that the future content they were referring to were only DLC and not expansions which is false since they had never clarified it.
4 - They added then power-ups, buffers, and P2W items more frequently to the shop, up to the point of seasonal lootboxes.
5 - They promoted exclusive cosmetic items in the store for a limited time that then reappeared.
And the list go on.
¨The dlc there is still free to those with a subcription? Im not seeing what this part is. Unless you refer to the chapters in which yes you're correct. That pisses off alot of people and many people left for it¨
When they promoted ESO PLUS they promised all future content included.
Then they came out to say that in reality that future content was only the DLC and that it did not include the expansions or chapters.
A great scam.
¨2. ESO's company ZoS also answer to a board and a parent company Bethesda both in regards to lore (being elder scrolls) and in business for the games revenue. They are subservient to bethesda's decisions for this reason since bethesda owns Elder Scrolls and is the parent company of Zenimax. Even if they wanted to do a different thing, the board would override or fire the devs¨
Promises are promises, no matter who makes them, are they made to be kept, or not?
Yet regardless of rank, track record, background, history shows that need outweighs promise in the world of business and video games.
¨3. To be fair to ZoS, they did not introduce any pay to win in my opinion. They did introduce controversial loot crates (very predatory I'll admit) and they did change from a subcription model to a buy-to-play model withe the Sub giving them access to all DLC. And the Shop expanded to letting players pay to aquire fully maxed skillines if they were completed on anther character. But they still had to be already completed content by the players. A slight difference but this is where ESO has gotten close to pay to win since there is no in-game method to speed level skill lines within the game¨
Look at the changes they made and that I mentioned above and tell me that it is not P2W
¨ Ashes is already planned and examined this area and is already funded whereas ESO was basically bailed out by Bethesda because they didnt plan or have the same level of funding at the start as Ashes¨
Time will tell.
¨4. Again none of this really relates to what I posted in previous comment since you only picked one sentence out of my other post. I'm just humoring you because this conversation is mildly fascinating to me.
Its like examing a brand new species¨
I love knowing that we think the same!
The power ups ESO offers through the crown store and almost consistently worse than their counterparts in the game. In fact most veteran players just delete them. The only thing that you can get that is comparable is the xp buffs.
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
We're arguing here in a circle. I'm no fan of ZoS so I'm not gonna defend them. They've made bad choices and some I dont remember well and some I do very well.
I'm here for AoC though because the conditions here, the company behind it, and the game ideals are very different.
Cosmetic shop as @Atama mentioned isnt going to go. Its like the node system for AoC. Its being built with a core design integrated with the game. So yes AoC cosmetic shop is a necessity. Its not like a background to change on a desktop.
Unless you generate revenue in the same way cosmetics do, its not going to happen. And definitely not without royally angering the community 3years on right now.
And also discrediting their entire word. Really bad way to start a company saying their aren't like the others is what you're suggesting simply out of rather selfish desire.
I dont neccessarily care that you want to aquire every cosmetic in the game. Its just not honest to call it pay to win. Because it fundamentally and objectively isnt.
I've seen real pay to win, on my death screens. If someone wants a rainbow shining out of their ass they want to pay for, I'm all for if it helps keep the game healthy on revenue to keep the other trash out.
Win condition for me: I already mention it before.
About ZOS: you jump from "But hell ESO was by far the worst launch MMO game I remember and yet now its one of the top three in the world" to "I'm no fan of ZoS so I'm not gonna defend them". You are in circle here.
"I'm here for AoC though because the conditions here, the company behind it, and the game ideals are very different
Cosmetic shop as @Atama mentioned isnt going to go. Its like the node system for AoC. Its being built with a core design integrated with the game. So yes AoC cosmetic shop is a necessity. Its not like a background to change on a desktop.
Unless you generate revenue in the same way cosmetics do, its not going to happen. And definitely not without royally angering the community 3years on right now.
And also discrediting their entire word. Really bad way to start a company saying their aren't like the others is what you're suggesting simply out of rather selfish desire.
I dont neccessarily care that you want to aquire every cosmetic in the game. Its just not honest to call it pay to win. Because it fundamentally and objectively isnt"
Ok...
"I've seen real pay to win, on my death screens. If someone wants a rainbow shining out of their ass they want to pay for, I'm all for if it helps keep the game healthy on revenue to keep the other trash out"
Ok...
Now that's your interpretation, I have mine.
Time, alone and without haste, will be in charge of revealing truths.
0
Options
NelsonRebelMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
We're arguing here in a circle. I'm no fan of ZoS so I'm not gonna defend them. They've made bad choices and some I dont remember well and some I do very well.
I'm here for AoC though because the conditions here, the company behind it, and the game ideals are very different.
Cosmetic shop as @Atama mentioned isnt going to go. Its like the node system for AoC. Its being built with a core design integrated with the game. So yes AoC cosmetic shop is a necessity. Its not like a background to change on a desktop.
Unless you generate revenue in the same way cosmetics do, its not going to happen. And definitely not without royally angering the community 3years on right now.
And also discrediting their entire word. Really bad way to start a company saying their aren't like the others is what you're suggesting simply out of rather selfish desire.
I dont neccessarily care that you want to aquire every cosmetic in the game. Its just not honest to call it pay to win. Because it fundamentally and objectively isnt.
I've seen real pay to win, on my death screens. If someone wants a rainbow shining out of their ass they want to pay for, I'm all for if it helps keep the game healthy on revenue to keep the other trash out.
Win condition for me: I already mention it before.
About ZOS: you jump from "But hell ESO was by far the worst launch MMO game I remember and yet now its one of the top three in the world" to "I'm no fan of ZoS so I'm not gonna defend them". You are in circle here.
"I'm here for AoC though because the conditions here, the company behind it, and the game ideals are very different
Cosmetic shop as @Atama mentioned isnt going to go. Its like the node system for AoC. Its being built with a core design integrated with the game. So yes AoC cosmetic shop is a necessity. Its not like a background to change on a desktop.
Unless you generate revenue in the same way cosmetics do, its not going to happen. And definitely not without royally angering the community 3years on right now.
And also discrediting their entire word. Really bad way to start a company saying their aren't like the others is what you're suggesting simply out of rather selfish desire.
I dont neccessarily care that you want to aquire every cosmetic in the game. Its just not honest to call it pay to win. Because it fundamentally and objectively isnt"
Ok...
"I've seen real pay to win, on my death screens. If someone wants a rainbow shining out of their ass they want to pay for, I'm all for if it helps keep the game healthy on revenue to keep the other trash out"
Ok...
Now that's your interpretation, I have mine.
Time, alone and without haste, will be in charge of revealing truths.
Talking about Eso isnt me talking in a circle. I made a statement comparing ESO to being one of the worst at launch as an example, and correlated to its success today as one of the top 3
Those are factually true statements that relate to my point saying even if Ashes has a rough start it doesnt mean much because it doesnt correlate to future success. How ESO achieved its succes isnt the same as Ashes will. Simply because they dont have anywhere the same business model or overbearing company board.
You're correct though that time will tell.
Interpretation in this area though is pretty concrete. Unless we want to start also re-defining what the sun and moon are and reverse the definitions.
That being said I did enjoy this conversation. And hope the game still lives up to your expectations
We're arguing here in a circle. I'm no fan of ZoS so I'm not gonna defend them. They've made bad choices and some I dont remember well and some I do very well.
I'm here for AoC though because the conditions here, the company behind it, and the game ideals are very different.
Cosmetic shop as @Atama mentioned isnt going to go. Its like the node system for AoC. Its being built with a core design integrated with the game. So yes AoC cosmetic shop is a necessity. Its not like a background to change on a desktop.
Unless you generate revenue in the same way cosmetics do, its not going to happen. And definitely not without royally angering the community 3years on right now.
And also discrediting their entire word. Really bad way to start a company saying their aren't like the others is what you're suggesting simply out of rather selfish desire.
I dont neccessarily care that you want to aquire every cosmetic in the game. Its just not honest to call it pay to win. Because it fundamentally and objectively isnt.
I've seen real pay to win, on my death screens. If someone wants a rainbow shining out of their ass they want to pay for, I'm all for if it helps keep the game healthy on revenue to keep the other trash out.
Win condition for me: I already mention it before.
About ZOS: you jump from "But hell ESO was by far the worst launch MMO game I remember and yet now its one of the top three in the world" to "I'm no fan of ZoS so I'm not gonna defend them". You are in circle here.
"I'm here for AoC though because the conditions here, the company behind it, and the game ideals are very different
Cosmetic shop as @Atama mentioned isnt going to go. Its like the node system for AoC. Its being built with a core design integrated with the game. So yes AoC cosmetic shop is a necessity. Its not like a background to change on a desktop.
Unless you generate revenue in the same way cosmetics do, its not going to happen. And definitely not without royally angering the community 3years on right now.
And also discrediting their entire word. Really bad way to start a company saying their aren't like the others is what you're suggesting simply out of rather selfish desire.
I dont neccessarily care that you want to aquire every cosmetic in the game. Its just not honest to call it pay to win. Because it fundamentally and objectively isnt"
Ok...
"I've seen real pay to win, on my death screens. If someone wants a rainbow shining out of their ass they want to pay for, I'm all for if it helps keep the game healthy on revenue to keep the other trash out"
Ok...
Now that's your interpretation, I have mine.
Time, alone and without haste, will be in charge of revealing truths.
Talking about Eso isnt me talking in a circle. I made a statement comparing ESO to being one of the worst at launch as an example, and correlated to its success today as one of the top 3
Those are factually true statements that relate to my point saying even if Ashes has a rough start it doesnt mean much because it doesnt correlate to future success. How ESO achieved its succes isnt the same as Ashes will. Simply because they dont have anywhere the same business model or overbearing company board.
You're correct though that time will tell.
Interpretation in this area though is pretty concrete. Unless we want to start also re-defining what the sun and moon are and reverse the definitions.
That being said I did enjoy this conversation. And hope the game still lives up to your expectations
It seems fair to me.
I would like to know from your perspective, if AOC is not successful with the current model, what would be its alternatives to improve without breaking the promises made?
Taking into account their form of monetization is the sale of cosmetics, if the subscription model does not raise enough funds due to the lack of players and the sale of cosmetics is not enough, what would be the next step?
It would be interesting for me to know your perspective and discuss it.
They had to do cosmetics because nigh on 10,000 people have lifetime subs. That's around 1.8 million dollars a year lost every year due to no subs from the 10k. Then for 7 referrals you also pay no sub fee.
All in all, it is a rough start if they only wanted to have a sub fee and no cash shop.
2
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
They had to do cosmetics because nigh on 10,000 people have lifetime subs. That's around 1.8 million dollars a year lost every year due to no subs from the 10k. Then for 7 referrals you also pay no sub fee.
All in all, it is a rough start if they only wanted to have a sub fee and no cash shop.
It’s not money lost. I paid them almost $500, which is basically me paying more than 2 1/2 years of a subscription up-front. They only lose money if I play the game longer than that (which I hope to do), but it sure gives them plenty of capital to get everything started.
If 10,000 people paid $500 each (many didn’t, I didn’t pay the whole thing thanks to Early Bird) but say they did to make the math easy, that’s 5 million bucks. So I think it was a smart move in the short run at least.
But you are correct in the sense that without a cash shop they’d probably not get another dime out of people like me. As it happens I’ve bought a good number of things and most likely will continue to do so in the future. I’m a sucker for cool exclusives.
The difference is money upfront has paid for the stretch goals, while the sub fees everyone else must pay will pay for the servers and the dlc. Economics dont make sense. The game was fully funded prior to the stretch goal. Only around 10 million dollars were added from kickstarter last I heard.
It is impossible for me to state the costs of the stretch goals but rest assured, it will be the subbers who fund Ashes in the long term, even with Cosmetic Sales. Even some KS Packages have lifetime cosmetic items too but one doesn't plan infrastructure on unknown quantities of cosmetic sales.
1
Options
NelsonRebelMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
We're arguing here in a circle. I'm no fan of ZoS so I'm not gonna defend them. They've made bad choices and some I dont remember well and some I do very well.
I'm here for AoC though because the conditions here, the company behind it, and the game ideals are very different.
Cosmetic shop as @Atama mentioned isnt going to go. Its like the node system for AoC. Its being built with a core design integrated with the game. So yes AoC cosmetic shop is a necessity. Its not like a background to change on a desktop.
Unless you generate revenue in the same way cosmetics do, its not going to happen. And definitely not without royally angering the community 3years on right now.
And also discrediting their entire word. Really bad way to start a company saying their aren't like the others is what you're suggesting simply out of rather selfish desire.
I dont neccessarily care that you want to aquire every cosmetic in the game. Its just not honest to call it pay to win. Because it fundamentally and objectively isnt.
I've seen real pay to win, on my death screens. If someone wants a rainbow shining out of their ass they want to pay for, I'm all for if it helps keep the game healthy on revenue to keep the other trash out.
Win condition for me: I already mention it before.
About ZOS: you jump from "But hell ESO was by far the worst launch MMO game I remember and yet now its one of the top three in the world" to "I'm no fan of ZoS so I'm not gonna defend them". You are in circle here.
"I'm here for AoC though because the conditions here, the company behind it, and the game ideals are very different
Cosmetic shop as @Atama mentioned isnt going to go. Its like the node system for AoC. Its being built with a core design integrated with the game. So yes AoC cosmetic shop is a necessity. Its not like a background to change on a desktop.
Unless you generate revenue in the same way cosmetics do, its not going to happen. And definitely not without royally angering the community 3years on right now.
And also discrediting their entire word. Really bad way to start a company saying their aren't like the others is what you're suggesting simply out of rather selfish desire.
I dont neccessarily care that you want to aquire every cosmetic in the game. Its just not honest to call it pay to win. Because it fundamentally and objectively isnt"
Ok...
"I've seen real pay to win, on my death screens. If someone wants a rainbow shining out of their ass they want to pay for, I'm all for if it helps keep the game healthy on revenue to keep the other trash out"
Ok...
Now that's your interpretation, I have mine.
Time, alone and without haste, will be in charge of revealing truths.
Talking about Eso isnt me talking in a circle. I made a statement comparing ESO to being one of the worst at launch as an example, and correlated to its success today as one of the top 3
Those are factually true statements that relate to my point saying even if Ashes has a rough start it doesnt mean much because it doesnt correlate to future success. How ESO achieved its succes isnt the same as Ashes will. Simply because they dont have anywhere the same business model or overbearing company board.
You're correct though that time will tell.
Interpretation in this area though is pretty concrete. Unless we want to start also re-defining what the sun and moon are and reverse the definitions.
That being said I did enjoy this conversation. And hope the game still lives up to your expectations
It seems fair to me.
I would like to know from your perspective, if AOC is not successful with the current model, what would be its alternatives to improve without breaking the promises made?
Taking into account their form of monetization is the sale of cosmetics, if the subscription model does not raise enough funds due to the lack of players and the sale of cosmetics is not enough, what would be the next step?
It would be interesting for me to know your perspective and discuss it.
This would be getting into territory I'm unqualified and unexperienced enough to give input on since I'm no financial advisor. Nor do I have the costs information that Intrepid has and is projecting in order to determine an accurate guess for their future funding levels.
I can give my opinion and guestimate, but it should be taken with a hefty grain of salt.
I'll start with a top down brief overview before I give my suggestion.
What we know is that steven already fronted an estimated 30million of his own wealth. Much of that is distributed to the games development costs, technology/computers/specialized equipment to design and code the game world. The rest divies up between Infrastructure, company branding, licensing, salaries with employees, and server costs.
This is a simplistic overview, but we know the 3 additional million from kickstarter helped backer goals along with garnering some extra incentive cosmetics once people learned about the game.
Since we know the game is already fully funded for development and recieved a very generous backer donation (the largest in kickstarter ever to be accurate) the question becomes how much subs will cover the games costs?
To determine that we need to consider what is the yearly cost of the MMO itself from the companies pockets.
I dont have a reference point for this guess but I would imagine its likely a couple million a year to keep; the servers up, the utilities/bills that run the buildings for them, and pay the employees salaries, along with the sites, and all the associated maintenance that goes with all those things to pay to other companies that provide those services.
So for the first year AoC and Steven probably need to keep at least that amount in mind in accepting a negative cost on until the game is proven up and running and players have been given time enough to play it for the gaming world to determine its value. Generally a year is about the timeframe a game runs before alot of people get into it, if the games good enough. But thats just my estimate.
So if the game gets a good 50 thousand subs (not the backers, brand new subs) the first year then it's already on track. I imagine in that time we'll already know the issues AoC has and will need to fix that first year. Wether Intrepid will be able to cover the costs for the timeframe until AoC proves its a good game is an unknown to me. But Stevens about as smart as they come and he knows more about the industry than most people. And certainly more than me.
I already anticipate issues/bugs/launch issues with accounts. Its just unavoidable in my opinion. I could be wrong with Intrepid Studios since they have already proven me wrong with how fast their development has progressed. But when it comes to launch there are things you just cant simulate or know until thousands of players are actually interacting with the world and the servers are put into full-time running and calculating everything simultaneously. Live servers are the only way to know what you dont know.
Moving on.
So the subs will probably need to reach around 50 thousand subs or more to start to reach sustainable and profitable money levels to cover the couple million a year it'll cost to run what I mentioned earlier (that I estimate) again I dont have reference points its just an assumption because I dont know the standard full yearly costs of running an MMO including all the infrastructure costs maintenance.
The Cash shop will definitely help fill in and cushion a massive portion of the yearly costs since most cash shop items are the cost of the sub itself if not more than that. with a cash shop up depending on the number of subs, you already double your revenue close to what I equate the yearly costs of. This is where the portion of profits to cost ratio become important.
If the game cant reach 50 thousand subs (total) the first year the cash shop may or may not be enough to fill in the rest. I dont know since I am woefully ignorant of the costs Intrepid Studios has
Just making the game sustainable isnt a sign the games a success though, thats like living paycheck to paycheck to pay your rent but not buying food, healthcare, and everything else you need.
If the game cant reach the point where it can put money in "savings" (closest reference I could make) then here are my suggestions moving forward if the game needs longer than a year to fix its problem
1. Increase the price of the sub to $20.00 dollars
2. Create a box cost for the game with its sub. (not advisable because it creates a cost barrier but it may help if the game is good just slow attracting players)
3. Make the game better and eat the cost of the negatives until you fix the games problem and generate the correct level of profits to cost. Whatever that may be.
Thats really the only other choices I would implement if AoC wants to fit inside its Ethical goals.
I'm no MMO designer though. So my suggestions arent exactly professional. I'm just a gamer in this part of the topic.
1
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
There’s another, very undesirable option, and that is to go free to play with increased micro transaction options. That probably means having P2W as well because people aren’t going to spend enough on optional items to fund the game unless they really have to. This has saved other games, for example LotRO was going to be shut down years ago but going F2P made it profitable again and it’s still going. Other games I’ve played that swapped to F2P to stay afloat were SWTOR, ESO, and The Secret World, and those are just from my own personal experience off the top of my head. It’s becoming the norm rather than the exception in the market for subscription MMOs.
I see this route as the game failing, though, whether it continues to be playable or not. Going F2P will go against the game’s core principles, because the sub is intended to keep out gold farmers, bots, and other toxic entities, and the studio pledged no P2W.
1
Options
NelsonRebelMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
There’s another, very undesirable option, and that is to go free to play with increased micro transaction options. That probably means having P2W as well because people aren’t going to spend enough on optional items to fund the game unless they really have to. This has saved other games, for example LotRO was going to be shut down years ago but going F2P made it profitable again and it’s still going. Other games I’ve played that swapped to F2P to stay afloat were SWTOR, ESO, and The Secret World, and those are just from my own personal experience off the top of my head. It’s becoming the norm rather than the exception in the market for subscription MMOs.
I see this route as the game failing, though, whether it continues to be playable or not. Going F2P will go against the game’s core principles, because the sub is intended to keep out gold farmers, bots, and other toxic entities, and the studio pledged no P2W.
Going F2p with increased cosmetic options is indeed an undesirable option.
But you're correct it did save few of those games.
Botters are what create the pay to win aspect though in that scenario. Not neccesarily the cash shop unless the cashop sells convienence items to progress faster
I actually dont consider convienence items pay to win, but I fully understand why others do. I'm pretty sure Steven considers that p2w as well so it doesnt hurt me either way.
I prefer no convienence items and am glad hes against them.
According to the kickstarter campaign, the number of lifetime subscriptions delivered are:
- Braver of Worlds Early Bird 400usd package = 250
- 425usd Braver of Worlds Early Bird package = 350
- 435usd Braver of Worlds Early Bird package = 300
- 445usd Braver of Worlds Early Bird package = 300
- 455usd Braver of Worlds Early Bird package = 250
- 470usd Braver of Worlds Early Bird package = 300
- Braver of Worlds Early Bird 485usd bundle = 746
- Braver of Worlds 500usd package = 430
- 1000usd Leader of Men pack = 275
- Package of 2500usd Royalty = 58
- 5000usd Hero of the People Pack = 21
- Pack of 10000usd Avatar of Phoenix = 5
A total of 3,285 lifetime subscriptions which will not generate monthly income, this equates to about 591300usd per year without billing.
Taking into account that these sales represented a total of 1919310usd which can be taken as payment of subscriptions in advance, the total collected would compensate the lack of billing for a period of 3 years and 3 months from which lifetime subscriptions (taking as a reference a stable value of 15usd per month) would begin to turn into annual losses of 591300usd.
On the other hand is the referral system.
The system proposes the following: for each referred user who makes a payment, 15% of said payment is awarded in the form of a credit to the referrer.
Taking into account as a form of payment only the monthly subscription of 15usd, the referrer can accumulate enough credit to not have to pay the monthly subscription if he have 7 referrals paying their subscriptions.
15% of 15usd = 2.25usd x 7 referrals = 15.75usd
Enough to cover the monthly subscription for the referrer.
Therefore the formula is 8 - 1 (every 8 users, 7 pay and 1 does not).
The particular thing about this system is that if the referrals at the same time become referrer they can begin to generate credit in their favor, reducing the cost to pay of their own subscription and therefore reducing the profit generated for their referrer.
It is a model that, as it expands, adjusts the credits granted at the lower levels of the structure.
Different distributions of referents - referrals can be given, but in general lines and by way of example if we take a total of 1000000 users in said system and in all cases the previously proposed premises are fulfilled (chains of 8 - 1 and only based on subscriptions) we would have the following:
- 875,000 users paying the total of their subscription generating income for a total of 157,500,000usd per year.
- 125,000 users with a fully subsidized subscription representing a loss of 22,500,000usd per year.
This model aims to generate an increase in the volume of recurring users which should compensate the losses due to the bonus.
This increase in volume not only contributes to generating an active community, full servers and more publicity, but at the same time increases the number of potential consumers for the store, a complementary system introduced in AOC.
In summary, it is a model with a mandatory monthly subscription with a bonus system in search of overcrowding and complemented by a paid store which in general has a grace period of 3 years and 3 months from its launch to increase its user base in a substantial way to achieve the expected success.
If this is not achieved, it is evident that substantial changes are going to be necessary, changes that I fear will exceed the premises raised as the basis of the game.
For this reason, and as I have said before, the key is not to find the perfect payment model to offer, but rather in the quality of the product offered, since the industry has shown that the lack of quality is compensated by billing models that, although they can be sustainable leading to the creation of a product of very low standards.
Sustaining a base game and expansions payment model with mandatory subscription without stores for me is still the key to success.
The problem is that it requires a product of extreme quality, one that captures the attention of the general public, that offers quality in every aspect and maintains it over time, excellence in each system, each mechanic, each section, that respects the different styles of user, that does not violate the expectations of a group in search of financing the rest, a perfect gem.
That is why when I see that financing practices used harm the expectations of a certain style of players in search of billing models for me, it is a red flag.
Time will tell, AOC has already set its course, it only remains to wait and see its evolution.
Meanwhile I still enjoy sharing opinions about it!
0
Options
NelsonRebelMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Sustaining a base game and expansions payment model with mandatory subscription without stores for me is still the key to success.
The problem is that it requires a product of extreme quality, one that captures the attention of the general public, that offers quality in every aspect and maintains it over time, excellence in each system, each mechanic, each section, that respects the different styles of user, that does not violate the expectations of a group in search of financing the rest, a perfect gem.
That is why when I see that financing practices used harm the expectations of a certain style of players in search of billing models for me, it is a red flag.
Time will tell, AOC has already set its course, it only remains to wait and see its evolution.
Meanwhile I still enjoy sharing opinions about it!
This kind of goes against the way demands for goods and services goes though.
Sustaining a base quality good game without any profit cosmetic store to generate profit to cover rising and changing world expenses along with an increasing demand for skilled and competent coders make your ideal game into basically saying "hey heres 15 dollars I'm gonna take whatever product and however many products I want inside walmart, thanks see you later" and disregarded all the costs of the those products and all the employees and all the employees of the other companies selling the product in walmart, all the costs of infrastructure, and maintenance needed to keep "walmart" running properly.
You cant really expect an extreme quality product of near perfect design to come without also getting the most extreme quality skilled people to want to come work for you.
And those people will want a way to put food on their plates and make a good living my man. Its not like artists who make art just to inspire people sometimes. This is about the people at Intrepid who work to design and code shit for hours and make it as seamless as possible. And also making sure that Intrepid can pay its own bills while putting money into designing and hiring and expanding the game.
Incentive and rewarding pay is the only way to get good people on your team 9/10 times.
I dont know if this is a right assumption I'm about to make, but it feels like your against capitalism itself in a way.
Sustaining a base game and expansions payment model with mandatory subscription without stores for me is still the key to success.
The problem is that it requires a product of extreme quality, one that captures the attention of the general public, that offers quality in every aspect and maintains it over time, excellence in each system, each mechanic, each section, that respects the different styles of user, that does not violate the expectations of a group in search of financing the rest, a perfect gem.
That is why when I see that financing practices used harm the expectations of a certain style of players in search of billing models for me, it is a red flag.
Time will tell, AOC has already set its course, it only remains to wait and see its evolution.
Meanwhile I still enjoy sharing opinions about it!
This kind of goes against the way demands for goods and services goes though.
Sustaining a base quality good game without any profit cosmetic store to generate profit to cover rising and changing world expenses along with an increasing demand for skilled and competent coders make your ideal game into basically saying "hey heres 15 dollars I'm gonna take whatever product and however many products I want inside walmart, thanks see you later" and disregarded all the costs of the those products and all the employees and all the employees of the other companies selling the product in walmart, all the costs of infrastructure, and maintenance needed to keep "walmart" running properly.
You cant really expect an extreme quality product of near perfect design to come without also getting the most extreme quality skilled people to want to come work for you.
And those people will want a way to put food on their plates and make a good living my man. Its not like artists who make art just to inspire people sometimes. This is about the people at Intrepid who work to design and code shit for hours and make it as seamless as possible. And also making sure that Intrepid can pay its own bills while putting money into designing and hiring and expanding the game.
Incentive and rewarding pay is the only way to get good people on your team 9/10 times.
I dont know if this is a right assumption I'm about to make, but it feels like your against capitalism itself in a way.
I think you didn't understand.
What I'm saying is that the ability to generate a high-quality product, which includes as many styles of games as possible within the genre, which offers a high standard in each of its sections can:
- Obtain private financing (without financing through its consumers with kickstarter campaigns, foundations, exclusive benefit packages, etc.)
- Charge for the cost of the product developed to its users (Base game and future expansions).
- Charge for the cost of the online service to its users (subscription).
- Generate a stable base of at least 10 million users.
- Generate adequate and non-predatory profits.
All this without the need to use consumer money as a source of financing, without resorting to other types of billing models, abuse of P2W, etc.
For a product of these characteristics launched on the market and under these conditions, with a cost of the base game and future expansions of 60usd and a monthly subscription of 15usd, we would be talking about the following:
- Annual billing for subscriptions: 1,800,000,000 usd.
- Initial billing for the base game: 600,000,000 usd.
- Billing for each expansion added: 600,000,000 usd.
If a turnover of 2,400,000,000 usd in the first year and 1,800,000,000 usd in the subsequent years until reaching the first expansion and repeating the process is not enough then it is evident that something is not being done well.
Many companies have shown over time that quality is not strictly linked to the size of the infrastructures it owns or contracts, the size of its teams or its lobbying capacity.
They have also shown that to make money, be profitable and be successful, it is not necessary to abuse the user and seek disproportionate profits.
Small developers have managed to create higher quality products (with a lower budget and good profit margin) than the large ones on the market.
With this I say that it is simple?
Not at all.
With this I say that there are no risks?
No, it is a high risk market.
The question is, who runs that risk?
Who assumes the losses in case of failure?
Before and as in my opinion it is the right thing to do, there was a division between Investors / Developers and Consumers.
The first group had the funds, the capacity to supply, the idea, the project, the ambition, the obligation to promote, captivate, and the right to success and profits or the obligation to assume failure and losses.
The second group had the ability to demand, choose, the money to invest in exchange for a product and / or service offered.
Today that division no longer exists.
Users became part of the investment, promotion and even sales incentive group, reaching the point of assuming significant losses of money in the process.
Investors no longer want to assume losses even to the point of distorting the product or service in search of generating profits, using ethically reprehensible methods. They no longer seek to obtain a certain benefit from an offered product but instead use an offered product to suck as much money as possible from consumers. They no longer assume the absolute risk of loss, but rather share it with the consumer.
The developers are no longer the developers of the product but are the materializers of the demands of investors and consumers seeking to satisfy two totally opposite extremes, remaining at a point that in most cases does not satisfy anyone.
Before, the product was offered complete, finished and the consumer could evaluate if it met their needs before paying.
Now the product is offered before starting the creation process, it is not a product, it is an idea and the consumer not only does not have the possibility of evaluating something tangible but is also involved in the process in which they give money for something non-existent.
The result of this mutation, a market full to the extreme of very low quality products that in many cases end up canceled during their development or that they do not even manage to start and all generating losses in the consumers themselves who end up empty-handed.
Oh hell no DDO did that premium content crap after a few years. Charge me a monthly and put some bad ass and sexy costmetics in the store and other than that don't nickle and dime me. I want access to everything for my monthly
Oh hell no DDO did that premium content crap after a few years. Charge me a monthly and put some bad ass and sexy costmetics in the store and other than that don't nickle and dime me. I want access to everything for my monthly
From Turbine to Standing Stone Games.
DDO has a strong P2W presence.
To say that a character who uses mana and must manage her resources strategically among the Shrine has the same power as one who buys mana potions OP in the store ...
A wizard or sorcerer with these potions becomes a nuclear cannon.
If the game is good I would pay a sub. Look at WOW. It is no longer good but it still has a sub. Even if you made a small sub fee that would not break people and would give you the ability to keep the lights on. Yes, sell cosmetics at the store, I have no issue with that. But if I had the ability to just set an account for a monthly fee I would rather that then buying things I do not want just to keep you guys goings. P2W definition is real money spent to win a personal in game goal.
@Elder Soul
Lets forget the fact that you are trying to completely reorganize the financial model of an entire industry for a minute.
You are seeming to say that you think Ashes will get 10,000,000 core subscribers.
Even WoW never had that many. It had 12,000,000 at one point, but Blizzard were (at the time) counting every account that had been created, including trial accounts.
Ashes will have perhaps 500,000 core subscribers that pay every month, and more that subscibe more intermittently. The game will be considered a massive success in the industry if it manages this.
You also seem to be ignoring the fact that your stated win condition is to collect all usable cosmetic items in game, and yet there are cosmetics that will never be made available to you, due to never being offered up for sale again.
A much better goal would be to obtain a version of every cosmetic mesh, or look. This prevents you from obtaining multiple copies of teh same item but with different colors, and has the added bonus of being able to do it in game.
I hate cash shops. I rather play a higher month sub to have access to all items in game but it will never go away now as they make too much money with it. IMHO cash shop items should drop in-game too so players who want to earn them can.
I hate cash shops. I rather play a higher month sub to have access to all items in game but it will never go away now as they make too much money with it. IMHO cash shop items should drop in-game too so players who want to earn them can.
I agree, and so does Intrepid.
Every item in the cash shop will be available in game, just in different color variations.
Ashes will have perhaps 500,000 core subscribers that pay every month, and more that subscibe more intermittently. The game will be considered a massive success in the industry if it manages this.
I think it needs more than that to hit the "massive success" watermark. I believe the game can hit over a million at the start. The kicker is can it hold them.
@Elder Soul
Ashes will have perhaps 500,000 core subscribers that pay every month, and more that subscibe more intermittently. The game will be considered a massive success in the industry if it manages this.
I think it needs more than that to hit the "massive success" watermark. I believe the game can hit over a million at the start. The kicker is can it hold them.
I didn't say it would hit 500,000 subscribers, I said it would have that many paying monthly.
If you look at a game like WoW, they claimed 12 million accounts, but had less than half of that pay subscriptions most months, some months it was as low as 2 million - especially between expansions.
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.
Are you high? The word win - be successful or victorious in (a contest or conflict) OR acquire or secure as a result of a contest, conflict, bet, or other endeavor.
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.
Pong. Two lines and a dot. This wasn't numbers, this was a virtual world full of possibilities.
With this in mind, excluding any of these components from the formula for success is very pretentious and unrealistic.
Excluding what exactly. All you said is words don't have a set meaning and that video games shouldn't only be stat values oh and that video games aren't just numbers. You've not suggested any components of making a successful game. Who's pretentious and unrealistic over what point? Your not saying anything productive.
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.
You're upset that how you enjoy playing the game isn't how others want to play? Honestly ? Is that what your saying?
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.
Yea. You're upset you enjoy collecting cosmetics and making money isn't the same as people who enjoy topping DPS charts and min maxing gear. You're literally talking about people that are playing the game for different reasons.
Cosmetics or quality of life enhancement items are not P2W!
Correct!... WHAT WRONG. Are you a moron? 'quality of life improvements" Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. If you pay real money and you get a noticaeable in game advantage for paying real money its P2W. There's NO ROOM for debating that.
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.
THAT'S LITERALLY THE POINT OF THE GAME
EVERY PLAYERS STORY IS UNIQUE
PROGRESSION ISN'T HANDED TO YOU
THE LATERAL PROGRESSION IS VAST
If you dont like guns you don't play CoD. If you dont want this exclusivity and uniqueness, leave.
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.
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.
You're giving skewed opinions on that payment plans mean for players.
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.
As can be seen? You're being moronic you provided nothing but opinion.
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.
Your only putting a paywall behind a subscription. It's like you want Steven to just add extra paywalls for those willing to pay because you dont think P2W even stands for pay to win.
And you like collecting cosmetics, I've got it.
You're bullied because your DPS is trash and you have IRL money you want to use for an advantage in game and are upset when you spend your money people say your nothing but a RPer that likes to P2W.
I do feel sorry for you.
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.
No, it is an accurate statement. Not a false one. When you just start making up your own definitions for things not accepted by anyone else, you've lost the ability to communicate.
I can define "P2W" as, "I pay money and now I am the ruler of my own real life country." And since no game offers that, I can conclude that no game is P2W. But that's ludicrous because I am using my own made-up, useless, nonsense definition.
Here's all that matters... There is a definition of P2W that Intrepid sticks to, that's the definition that they mean when they say they pledge to avoid P2W, and that's it. It also happens to be what the rest of the world means by P2W. If you want to define "win" by having an appearance, okay, you do that, but don't point the finger at Intrepid and claim they're failing by some measure you invent, and don't go calling the game P2W when it isn't.
You are literally inventing your own personal problem, painting it onto the game, then advocating a solution when the problem doesn't exist.
[/quote]
My dude. OP thinks paying for cosmetics makes a game p2w.
1
Options
NelsonRebelMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Beyond the issue of why Cosmetics arent pay to win.
Your issue seems to be closer that there is the existence of a cash shop at all even if it's cosmetics that impact nothing within the game (other than your personal preferences).
I disagree that a cosmetic cash shop negatively impacts the game in any way shape or form.
Its the complete opposite to me. Heres why
Funding.
If you want to be successful and get more investors and get more talented people and more community and more EVERYTHING you need the purchasing power to make it happen. The only way that is possible is for your game to generate a positive revenue. The Sub doesnt really cut it when you're talking about maintaining a megaserver infrastructure and taking into account the 30Million dollars already invested in the game.
They need to make profit and show they can make up what was spent.
Therefore a cosmetic cash shop (only cosmetics) is the easiest and most succesful way to so do because it almost instantly doubles the revenue of however much your subscriber base is because people buy multiple cosmetics. Thats just how it is. People like to get multiple cosmetics.
And guess what all that funding determines
Employee salaries. (Except for companies like blizzard that pay their employes with ingame mounts and crap that THEY designed XD)
And I WANT Intrepid to make money, I want them to pay their employees damn good salaries. I want them to pay for good quality servers and good quality clients. I want them to have good computers and good internet services and all the good specialized equipments and designers for the game. I want them to make money to expand grow and hire people to give the game the support it needs to run smooth and have quality and fast customer support and services.
A cosmetic cash shop makes the game more successful IMO because it stays out of pay to win and makes the game better by making money and growing. You have to make money to get quality people.
This only becomes a danger if the Studio prioritized profits over the game.
But thats exactly why Steven began Intrepid in the first place. You need to understand that this is millions of dollars we're talking about and quality services and products directly correlate to quality employees and those employees will generally work where they get paid well.
Its like voice acting, it would make the game better but it costs money. Money wether you like it or not is just how the economy works for the world and the Company needs a hefty dose of it. And sustained growth of it
AOC: Project without the need for funds to complete the development of all the basic ideas and concepts that it proposes to revolutionize the genre.
This means that no type of kickstarter or foundation program was necessary since the necessary funds were available.
However, with the premise of involving the community, the kickstarter program was created with packages of up to 10k usd granting exclusive objects, thus creating a gap between the community in the future.
At the same time it was established that the funds raised would be destined to the creation of additional content and not to the development of the original proposal.
In this way, a project with secured financing instead of developing its product and offering it began by raising extra funds from future consumers of the game, even before showing the bases of its proposal in operation.
This strategy opened the door to the micropayment store and the sale of cosmetic objects, all before having a playable and polished version to show to its consumers.
If we take the premise of the campaign and its purpose of involving potential clients in the project, this managed to attract about 19,576 patrons.
If we take the number of potential users for the first year (raised by other users in the last comments of this thread)
of 500k it can be deduced that they managed to attract 3.9% of said base.
A system of separation from the community was created (those who have and those who have not) collecting funds that were not necessary for the full development of the game and all for 3.9% of its future consumers.
It is obvious, that was only the beginning, the entrance door to the pay store and the sale of cosmetics.
Three years after this start, the sale of packages increased, this demand the creation of new dedicated and exclusive cosmetic models for that small initial % (plus those that were added from the web store), which implies labor time, resources and dedicated facilities.
Three years after this start, they still do not offer a playable version that shows all the promised game mechanics in operation.
Three years after this start and still fundamental aspects such as the combat system and the physics of movement remain unpolished.
From my perspective, taking into account that they had the necessary funds, they should have developed the product to achieve a version polished and complete enough to show to the public and with this achieve the effect of attracting consumers.
The factor of involving the community should have been from a participatory approach and not from billing.
The model should have been, payment of the game and future expansions and mandatory recurring subscription without any additional payments or store.
The way to sustain and finance a project is by attracting as many users as possible and maintaining them.
The way to attract and keep them is with a quality product that respects the different styles of players, not with microtransactions, exclusive packages and hype.
I understand that the creation of a store and sale of cosmetics is seen as a way to generate extra income to maintain the game and finance future content, but from my perspective this alienates a large number of players who do not feel comfortable with this type of models which in the long run ends up being counterproductive.
Sorry but your solution seems outrageous you are basically putting a cash shop behind a paywall
^ This.
Not sure if @Elder Soul is trolling or just like to make scatter-gun arguments. Either way I believe the cosmetics in the cash shop is more of a privilege for further supporting the game allowing people to show off exclusive content because they were there during the sale of the item and was in the position to get it. Having additional 'premium membership' fees to get access to all cosmetics would be horrible.
I dont know about others but I personally dont want a large amount of the player base running around with the same cosmetics. The ability to buy an exclusive skin for a premium is a privilege and a 'thank you' for further support towards the game at different stages throughout development and a subtle 'nod' or acknowledgement.
Comments
We're arguing here in a circle. I'm no fan of ZoS so I'm not gonna defend them. They've made bad choices and some I dont remember well and some I do very well.
I'm here for AoC though because the conditions here, the company behind it, and the game ideals are very different.
Cosmetic shop as @Atama mentioned isnt going to go. Its like the node system for AoC. Its being built with a core design integrated with the game. So yes AoC cosmetic shop is a necessity. Its not like a background to change on a desktop.
Unless you generate revenue in the same way cosmetics do, its not going to happen. And definitely not without royally angering the community 3years on right now.
And also discrediting their entire word. Really bad way to start a company saying their aren't like the others is what you're suggesting simply out of rather selfish desire.
I dont neccessarily care that you want to aquire every cosmetic in the game. Its just not honest to call it pay to win. Because it fundamentally and objectively isnt.
I've seen real pay to win, on my death screens. If someone wants a rainbow shining out of their ass they want to pay for, I'm all for if it helps keep the game healthy on revenue to keep the other trash out.
I wish you were wrong. XD
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
Personally I think you could say the pay for convenience skill lines and skyshards are a little P2W. I reread your post and saw that you did say that. My bad I missed it on my first read through.
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
The power ups ESO offers through the crown store and almost consistently worse than their counterparts in the game. In fact most veteran players just delete them. The only thing that you can get that is comparable is the xp buffs.
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.
Win condition for me: I already mention it before.
About ZOS: you jump from "But hell ESO was by far the worst launch MMO game I remember and yet now its one of the top three in the world" to "I'm no fan of ZoS so I'm not gonna defend them". You are in circle here.
"I'm here for AoC though because the conditions here, the company behind it, and the game ideals are very different
Cosmetic shop as @Atama mentioned isnt going to go. Its like the node system for AoC. Its being built with a core design integrated with the game. So yes AoC cosmetic shop is a necessity. Its not like a background to change on a desktop.
Unless you generate revenue in the same way cosmetics do, its not going to happen. And definitely not without royally angering the community 3years on right now.
And also discrediting their entire word. Really bad way to start a company saying their aren't like the others is what you're suggesting simply out of rather selfish desire.
I dont neccessarily care that you want to aquire every cosmetic in the game. Its just not honest to call it pay to win. Because it fundamentally and objectively isnt"
Ok...
"I've seen real pay to win, on my death screens. If someone wants a rainbow shining out of their ass they want to pay for, I'm all for if it helps keep the game healthy on revenue to keep the other trash out"
Ok...
Now that's your interpretation, I have mine.
Time, alone and without haste, will be in charge of revealing truths.
Talking about Eso isnt me talking in a circle. I made a statement comparing ESO to being one of the worst at launch as an example, and correlated to its success today as one of the top 3
Those are factually true statements that relate to my point saying even if Ashes has a rough start it doesnt mean much because it doesnt correlate to future success. How ESO achieved its succes isnt the same as Ashes will. Simply because they dont have anywhere the same business model or overbearing company board.
You're correct though that time will tell.
Interpretation in this area though is pretty concrete. Unless we want to start also re-defining what the sun and moon are and reverse the definitions.
That being said I did enjoy this conversation. And hope the game still lives up to your expectations
It seems fair to me.
I would like to know from your perspective, if AOC is not successful with the current model, what would be its alternatives to improve without breaking the promises made?
Taking into account their form of monetization is the sale of cosmetics, if the subscription model does not raise enough funds due to the lack of players and the sale of cosmetics is not enough, what would be the next step?
It would be interesting for me to know your perspective and discuss it.
All in all, it is a rough start if they only wanted to have a sub fee and no cash shop.
If 10,000 people paid $500 each (many didn’t, I didn’t pay the whole thing thanks to Early Bird) but say they did to make the math easy, that’s 5 million bucks. So I think it was a smart move in the short run at least.
But you are correct in the sense that without a cash shop they’d probably not get another dime out of people like me. As it happens I’ve bought a good number of things and most likely will continue to do so in the future. I’m a sucker for cool exclusives.
It is impossible for me to state the costs of the stretch goals but rest assured, it will be the subbers who fund Ashes in the long term, even with Cosmetic Sales. Even some KS Packages have lifetime cosmetic items too but one doesn't plan infrastructure on unknown quantities of cosmetic sales.
This would be getting into territory I'm unqualified and unexperienced enough to give input on since I'm no financial advisor. Nor do I have the costs information that Intrepid has and is projecting in order to determine an accurate guess for their future funding levels.
I can give my opinion and guestimate, but it should be taken with a hefty grain of salt.
I'll start with a top down brief overview before I give my suggestion.
What we know is that steven already fronted an estimated 30million of his own wealth. Much of that is distributed to the games development costs, technology/computers/specialized equipment to design and code the game world. The rest divies up between Infrastructure, company branding, licensing, salaries with employees, and server costs.
This is a simplistic overview, but we know the 3 additional million from kickstarter helped backer goals along with garnering some extra incentive cosmetics once people learned about the game.
Since we know the game is already fully funded for development and recieved a very generous backer donation (the largest in kickstarter ever to be accurate) the question becomes how much subs will cover the games costs?
To determine that we need to consider what is the yearly cost of the MMO itself from the companies pockets.
I dont have a reference point for this guess but I would imagine its likely a couple million a year to keep; the servers up, the utilities/bills that run the buildings for them, and pay the employees salaries, along with the sites, and all the associated maintenance that goes with all those things to pay to other companies that provide those services.
So for the first year AoC and Steven probably need to keep at least that amount in mind in accepting a negative cost on until the game is proven up and running and players have been given time enough to play it for the gaming world to determine its value. Generally a year is about the timeframe a game runs before alot of people get into it, if the games good enough. But thats just my estimate.
So if the game gets a good 50 thousand subs (not the backers, brand new subs) the first year then it's already on track. I imagine in that time we'll already know the issues AoC has and will need to fix that first year. Wether Intrepid will be able to cover the costs for the timeframe until AoC proves its a good game is an unknown to me. But Stevens about as smart as they come and he knows more about the industry than most people. And certainly more than me.
I already anticipate issues/bugs/launch issues with accounts. Its just unavoidable in my opinion. I could be wrong with Intrepid Studios since they have already proven me wrong with how fast their development has progressed. But when it comes to launch there are things you just cant simulate or know until thousands of players are actually interacting with the world and the servers are put into full-time running and calculating everything simultaneously. Live servers are the only way to know what you dont know.
Moving on.
So the subs will probably need to reach around 50 thousand subs or more to start to reach sustainable and profitable money levels to cover the couple million a year it'll cost to run what I mentioned earlier (that I estimate) again I dont have reference points its just an assumption because I dont know the standard full yearly costs of running an MMO including all the infrastructure costs maintenance.
The Cash shop will definitely help fill in and cushion a massive portion of the yearly costs since most cash shop items are the cost of the sub itself if not more than that. with a cash shop up depending on the number of subs, you already double your revenue close to what I equate the yearly costs of. This is where the portion of profits to cost ratio become important.
If the game cant reach 50 thousand subs (total) the first year the cash shop may or may not be enough to fill in the rest. I dont know since I am woefully ignorant of the costs Intrepid Studios has
Just making the game sustainable isnt a sign the games a success though, thats like living paycheck to paycheck to pay your rent but not buying food, healthcare, and everything else you need.
If the game cant reach the point where it can put money in "savings" (closest reference I could make) then here are my suggestions moving forward if the game needs longer than a year to fix its problem
1. Increase the price of the sub to $20.00 dollars
2. Create a box cost for the game with its sub. (not advisable because it creates a cost barrier but it may help if the game is good just slow attracting players)
3. Make the game better and eat the cost of the negatives until you fix the games problem and generate the correct level of profits to cost. Whatever that may be.
Thats really the only other choices I would implement if AoC wants to fit inside its Ethical goals.
I'm no MMO designer though. So my suggestions arent exactly professional. I'm just a gamer in this part of the topic.
I see this route as the game failing, though, whether it continues to be playable or not. Going F2P will go against the game’s core principles, because the sub is intended to keep out gold farmers, bots, and other toxic entities, and the studio pledged no P2W.
Going F2p with increased cosmetic options is indeed an undesirable option.
But you're correct it did save few of those games.
Botters are what create the pay to win aspect though in that scenario. Not neccesarily the cash shop unless the cashop sells convienence items to progress faster
I actually dont consider convienence items pay to win, but I fully understand why others do. I'm pretty sure Steven considers that p2w as well so it doesnt hurt me either way.
I prefer no convienence items and am glad hes against them.
- Braver of Worlds Early Bird 400usd package = 250
- 425usd Braver of Worlds Early Bird package = 350
- 435usd Braver of Worlds Early Bird package = 300
- 445usd Braver of Worlds Early Bird package = 300
- 455usd Braver of Worlds Early Bird package = 250
- 470usd Braver of Worlds Early Bird package = 300
- Braver of Worlds Early Bird 485usd bundle = 746
- Braver of Worlds 500usd package = 430
- 1000usd Leader of Men pack = 275
- Package of 2500usd Royalty = 58
- 5000usd Hero of the People Pack = 21
- Pack of 10000usd Avatar of Phoenix = 5
A total of 3,285 lifetime subscriptions which will not generate monthly income, this equates to about 591300usd per year without billing.
Taking into account that these sales represented a total of 1919310usd which can be taken as payment of subscriptions in advance, the total collected would compensate the lack of billing for a period of 3 years and 3 months from which lifetime subscriptions (taking as a reference a stable value of 15usd per month) would begin to turn into annual losses of 591300usd.
On the other hand is the referral system.
The system proposes the following: for each referred user who makes a payment, 15% of said payment is awarded in the form of a credit to the referrer.
Taking into account as a form of payment only the monthly subscription of 15usd, the referrer can accumulate enough credit to not have to pay the monthly subscription if he have 7 referrals paying their subscriptions.
15% of 15usd = 2.25usd x 7 referrals = 15.75usd
Enough to cover the monthly subscription for the referrer.
Therefore the formula is 8 - 1 (every 8 users, 7 pay and 1 does not).
The particular thing about this system is that if the referrals at the same time become referrer they can begin to generate credit in their favor, reducing the cost to pay of their own subscription and therefore reducing the profit generated for their referrer.
It is a model that, as it expands, adjusts the credits granted at the lower levels of the structure.
Different distributions of referents - referrals can be given, but in general lines and by way of example if we take a total of 1000000 users in said system and in all cases the previously proposed premises are fulfilled (chains of 8 - 1 and only based on subscriptions) we would have the following:
- 875,000 users paying the total of their subscription generating income for a total of 157,500,000usd per year.
- 125,000 users with a fully subsidized subscription representing a loss of 22,500,000usd per year.
This model aims to generate an increase in the volume of recurring users which should compensate the losses due to the bonus.
This increase in volume not only contributes to generating an active community, full servers and more publicity, but at the same time increases the number of potential consumers for the store, a complementary system introduced in AOC.
In summary, it is a model with a mandatory monthly subscription with a bonus system in search of overcrowding and complemented by a paid store which in general has a grace period of 3 years and 3 months from its launch to increase its user base in a substantial way to achieve the expected success.
If this is not achieved, it is evident that substantial changes are going to be necessary, changes that I fear will exceed the premises raised as the basis of the game.
For this reason, and as I have said before, the key is not to find the perfect payment model to offer, but rather in the quality of the product offered, since the industry has shown that the lack of quality is compensated by billing models that, although they can be sustainable leading to the creation of a product of very low standards.
Sustaining a base game and expansions payment model with mandatory subscription without stores for me is still the key to success.
The problem is that it requires a product of extreme quality, one that captures the attention of the general public, that offers quality in every aspect and maintains it over time, excellence in each system, each mechanic, each section, that respects the different styles of user, that does not violate the expectations of a group in search of financing the rest, a perfect gem.
That is why when I see that financing practices used harm the expectations of a certain style of players in search of billing models for me, it is a red flag.
Time will tell, AOC has already set its course, it only remains to wait and see its evolution.
Meanwhile I still enjoy sharing opinions about it!
This kind of goes against the way demands for goods and services goes though.
Sustaining a base quality good game without any profit cosmetic store to generate profit to cover rising and changing world expenses along with an increasing demand for skilled and competent coders make your ideal game into basically saying "hey heres 15 dollars I'm gonna take whatever product and however many products I want inside walmart, thanks see you later" and disregarded all the costs of the those products and all the employees and all the employees of the other companies selling the product in walmart, all the costs of infrastructure, and maintenance needed to keep "walmart" running properly.
You cant really expect an extreme quality product of near perfect design to come without also getting the most extreme quality skilled people to want to come work for you.
And those people will want a way to put food on their plates and make a good living my man. Its not like artists who make art just to inspire people sometimes. This is about the people at Intrepid who work to design and code shit for hours and make it as seamless as possible. And also making sure that Intrepid can pay its own bills while putting money into designing and hiring and expanding the game.
Incentive and rewarding pay is the only way to get good people on your team 9/10 times.
I dont know if this is a right assumption I'm about to make, but it feels like your against capitalism itself in a way.
I think you didn't understand.
What I'm saying is that the ability to generate a high-quality product, which includes as many styles of games as possible within the genre, which offers a high standard in each of its sections can:
- Obtain private financing (without financing through its consumers with kickstarter campaigns, foundations, exclusive benefit packages, etc.)
- Charge for the cost of the product developed to its users (Base game and future expansions).
- Charge for the cost of the online service to its users (subscription).
- Generate a stable base of at least 10 million users.
- Generate adequate and non-predatory profits.
All this without the need to use consumer money as a source of financing, without resorting to other types of billing models, abuse of P2W, etc.
For a product of these characteristics launched on the market and under these conditions, with a cost of the base game and future expansions of 60usd and a monthly subscription of 15usd, we would be talking about the following:
- Annual billing for subscriptions: 1,800,000,000 usd.
- Initial billing for the base game: 600,000,000 usd.
- Billing for each expansion added: 600,000,000 usd.
If a turnover of 2,400,000,000 usd in the first year and 1,800,000,000 usd in the subsequent years until reaching the first expansion and repeating the process is not enough then it is evident that something is not being done well.
Many companies have shown over time that quality is not strictly linked to the size of the infrastructures it owns or contracts, the size of its teams or its lobbying capacity.
They have also shown that to make money, be profitable and be successful, it is not necessary to abuse the user and seek disproportionate profits.
Small developers have managed to create higher quality products (with a lower budget and good profit margin) than the large ones on the market.
With this I say that it is simple?
Not at all.
With this I say that there are no risks?
No, it is a high risk market.
The question is, who runs that risk?
Who assumes the losses in case of failure?
Before and as in my opinion it is the right thing to do, there was a division between Investors / Developers and Consumers.
The first group had the funds, the capacity to supply, the idea, the project, the ambition, the obligation to promote, captivate, and the right to success and profits or the obligation to assume failure and losses.
The second group had the ability to demand, choose, the money to invest in exchange for a product and / or service offered.
Today that division no longer exists.
Users became part of the investment, promotion and even sales incentive group, reaching the point of assuming significant losses of money in the process.
Investors no longer want to assume losses even to the point of distorting the product or service in search of generating profits, using ethically reprehensible methods. They no longer seek to obtain a certain benefit from an offered product but instead use an offered product to suck as much money as possible from consumers. They no longer assume the absolute risk of loss, but rather share it with the consumer.
The developers are no longer the developers of the product but are the materializers of the demands of investors and consumers seeking to satisfy two totally opposite extremes, remaining at a point that in most cases does not satisfy anyone.
Before, the product was offered complete, finished and the consumer could evaluate if it met their needs before paying.
Now the product is offered before starting the creation process, it is not a product, it is an idea and the consumer not only does not have the possibility of evaluating something tangible but is also involved in the process in which they give money for something non-existent.
The result of this mutation, a market full to the extreme of very low quality products that in many cases end up canceled during their development or that they do not even manage to start and all generating losses in the consumers themselves who end up empty-handed.
From Turbine to Standing Stone Games.
DDO has a strong P2W presence.
To say that a character who uses mana and must manage her resources strategically among the Shrine has the same power as one who buys mana potions OP in the store ...
A wizard or sorcerer with these potions becomes a nuclear cannon.
And that's just to cite one of many options.
Lets forget the fact that you are trying to completely reorganize the financial model of an entire industry for a minute.
You are seeming to say that you think Ashes will get 10,000,000 core subscribers.
Even WoW never had that many. It had 12,000,000 at one point, but Blizzard were (at the time) counting every account that had been created, including trial accounts.
Ashes will have perhaps 500,000 core subscribers that pay every month, and more that subscibe more intermittently. The game will be considered a massive success in the industry if it manages this.
You also seem to be ignoring the fact that your stated win condition is to collect all usable cosmetic items in game, and yet there are cosmetics that will never be made available to you, due to never being offered up for sale again.
A much better goal would be to obtain a version of every cosmetic mesh, or look. This prevents you from obtaining multiple copies of teh same item but with different colors, and has the added bonus of being able to do it in game.
I agree, and so does Intrepid.
Every item in the cash shop will be available in game, just in different color variations.
I think it needs more than that to hit the "massive success" watermark. I believe the game can hit over a million at the start. The kicker is can it hold them.
If you look at a game like WoW, they claimed 12 million accounts, but had less than half of that pay subscriptions most months, some months it was as low as 2 million - especially between expansions.
Are you high? The word win - be successful or victorious in (a contest or conflict) OR acquire or secure as a result of a contest, conflict, bet, or other endeavor.
Pong. Two lines and a dot. This wasn't numbers, this was a virtual world full of possibilities.
Excluding what exactly. All you said is words don't have a set meaning and that video games shouldn't only be stat values oh and that video games aren't just numbers. You've not suggested any components of making a successful game. Who's pretentious and unrealistic over what point? Your not saying anything productive.
You're upset that how you enjoy playing the game isn't how others want to play? Honestly ? Is that what your saying?
Yea. You're upset you enjoy collecting cosmetics and making money isn't the same as people who enjoy topping DPS charts and min maxing gear. You're literally talking about people that are playing the game for different reasons.
Correct!... WHAT WRONG. Are you a moron? 'quality of life improvements" Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. If you pay real money and you get a noticaeable in game advantage for paying real money its P2W. There's NO ROOM for debating that.
My guess? Since you were in elementary school.
Ok... This isn't nonsense.
THAT'S LITERALLY THE POINT OF THE GAME
EVERY PLAYERS STORY IS UNIQUE
PROGRESSION ISN'T HANDED TO YOU
THE LATERAL PROGRESSION IS VAST
If you dont like guns you don't play CoD. If you dont want this exclusivity and uniqueness, leave.
You're giving skewed opinions on that payment plans mean for players.
As can be seen? You're being moronic you provided nothing but opinion.
Flawed, contrive and abuse able.
Your only putting a paywall behind a subscription. It's like you want Steven to just add extra paywalls for those willing to pay because you dont think P2W even stands for pay to win.
And you like collecting cosmetics, I've got it.
You're bullied because your DPS is trash and you have IRL money you want to use for an advantage in game and are upset when you spend your money people say your nothing but a RPer that likes to P2W.
I do feel sorry for you.
I can define "P2W" as, "I pay money and now I am the ruler of my own real life country." And since no game offers that, I can conclude that no game is P2W. But that's ludicrous because I am using my own made-up, useless, nonsense definition.
Here's all that matters... There is a definition of P2W that Intrepid sticks to, that's the definition that they mean when they say they pledge to avoid P2W, and that's it. It also happens to be what the rest of the world means by P2W. If you want to define "win" by having an appearance, okay, you do that, but don't point the finger at Intrepid and claim they're failing by some measure you invent, and don't go calling the game P2W when it isn't.
You are literally inventing your own personal problem, painting it onto the game, then advocating a solution when the problem doesn't exist.
[/quote]
My dude. OP thinks paying for cosmetics makes a game p2w.
Beyond the issue of why Cosmetics arent pay to win.
Your issue seems to be closer that there is the existence of a cash shop at all even if it's cosmetics that impact nothing within the game (other than your personal preferences).
I disagree that a cosmetic cash shop negatively impacts the game in any way shape or form.
Its the complete opposite to me. Heres why
Funding.
If you want to be successful and get more investors and get more talented people and more community and more EVERYTHING you need the purchasing power to make it happen. The only way that is possible is for your game to generate a positive revenue. The Sub doesnt really cut it when you're talking about maintaining a megaserver infrastructure and taking into account the 30Million dollars already invested in the game.
They need to make profit and show they can make up what was spent.
Therefore a cosmetic cash shop (only cosmetics) is the easiest and most succesful way to so do because it almost instantly doubles the revenue of however much your subscriber base is because people buy multiple cosmetics. Thats just how it is. People like to get multiple cosmetics.
And guess what all that funding determines
Employee salaries. (Except for companies like blizzard that pay their employes with ingame mounts and crap that THEY designed XD)
And I WANT Intrepid to make money, I want them to pay their employees damn good salaries. I want them to pay for good quality servers and good quality clients. I want them to have good computers and good internet services and all the good specialized equipments and designers for the game. I want them to make money to expand grow and hire people to give the game the support it needs to run smooth and have quality and fast customer support and services.
A cosmetic cash shop makes the game more successful IMO because it stays out of pay to win and makes the game better by making money and growing. You have to make money to get quality people.
This only becomes a danger if the Studio prioritized profits over the game.
But thats exactly why Steven began Intrepid in the first place. You need to understand that this is millions of dollars we're talking about and quality services and products directly correlate to quality employees and those employees will generally work where they get paid well.
Its like voice acting, it would make the game better but it costs money. Money wether you like it or not is just how the economy works for the world and the Company needs a hefty dose of it. And sustained growth of it
This means that no type of kickstarter or foundation program was necessary since the necessary funds were available.
However, with the premise of involving the community, the kickstarter program was created with packages of up to 10k usd granting exclusive objects, thus creating a gap between the community in the future.
At the same time it was established that the funds raised would be destined to the creation of additional content and not to the development of the original proposal.
In this way, a project with secured financing instead of developing its product and offering it began by raising extra funds from future consumers of the game, even before showing the bases of its proposal in operation.
This strategy opened the door to the micropayment store and the sale of cosmetic objects, all before having a playable and polished version to show to its consumers.
If we take the premise of the campaign and its purpose of involving potential clients in the project, this managed to attract about 19,576 patrons.
If we take the number of potential users for the first year (raised by other users in the last comments of this thread)
of 500k it can be deduced that they managed to attract 3.9% of said base.
A system of separation from the community was created (those who have and those who have not) collecting funds that were not necessary for the full development of the game and all for 3.9% of its future consumers.
It is obvious, that was only the beginning, the entrance door to the pay store and the sale of cosmetics.
Three years after this start, the sale of packages increased, this demand the creation of new dedicated and exclusive cosmetic models for that small initial % (plus those that were added from the web store), which implies labor time, resources and dedicated facilities.
Three years after this start, they still do not offer a playable version that shows all the promised game mechanics in operation.
Three years after this start and still fundamental aspects such as the combat system and the physics of movement remain unpolished.
From my perspective, taking into account that they had the necessary funds, they should have developed the product to achieve a version polished and complete enough to show to the public and with this achieve the effect of attracting consumers.
The factor of involving the community should have been from a participatory approach and not from billing.
The model should have been, payment of the game and future expansions and mandatory recurring subscription without any additional payments or store.
The way to sustain and finance a project is by attracting as many users as possible and maintaining them.
The way to attract and keep them is with a quality product that respects the different styles of players, not with microtransactions, exclusive packages and hype.
I understand that the creation of a store and sale of cosmetics is seen as a way to generate extra income to maintain the game and finance future content, but from my perspective this alienates a large number of players who do not feel comfortable with this type of models which in the long run ends up being counterproductive.
^ This.
Not sure if @Elder Soul is trolling or just like to make scatter-gun arguments. Either way I believe the cosmetics in the cash shop is more of a privilege for further supporting the game allowing people to show off exclusive content because they were there during the sale of the item and was in the position to get it. Having additional 'premium membership' fees to get access to all cosmetics would be horrible.
I dont know about others but I personally dont want a large amount of the player base running around with the same cosmetics. The ability to buy an exclusive skin for a premium is a privilege and a 'thank you' for further support towards the game at different stages throughout development and a subtle 'nod' or acknowledgement.
If you want all the skins save up