In regards to microtransactions.

Hello.

I will start out by saying that no, I am not a supporter, I have not in any shape of form contributed to the money pile for the developement of this game. I am merely a MMO loving individual, who have taken interest in Ashes of Creation. I am not a qualified professional in any shape of form, I am but a positive realist, who desperately wants to enjoy a media that was once enjoyable when he was a kid.

Now, the post will probably be long and there will not be a TL:DR, as these concerns and points can not be made with a single statement. Or they can, but that would be diminishing the actual issues I am going to point out. If you really want to add a TL:DR which ignores every single point I am going to make, I will add one for you: "All microtransactions are bad, mmmkay?"

Microtransactions and business

The video game industry is a business, creating video games costs money, and thus it should be fully expected that a video game will be released as a luxury product which earns the developing studio or company a substantial revenue. Video games are a luxury, not a necessity.

In recent years we have seen an increase in a practice which was otherwise foreign to many of us, who have been gaming since the late 18's and early 20's. Microtransactions have surged, deemed a necessity by large gaming corporations although they really aren't. The idea that microtransactions is a necessity to keep a cost of 60 dollar on video games is ludicrous, especially when said corporations spend most money on advertising the game, than they now do for shipping the game; most of them no longer pay retailers and shipment of their products to said retailers, across lands and sea - keep that in mind.

Microtransactions in all shapes and forms have had several effects on the industry. It angered some, including myself, it was a joy for others, primarily the suits running these gaming studios and corporations, while also being seen as a convenience for other players, for reasons unknown to me. But the worst effect that microtransactions have on games, is the fact that they are made to sell. Microtransactions primarily preys on specific people, children, and those with compulsive spending habits, and honestly - this is extremely gross and a very, very low view on ones fellow human beings. You are basically implementing a system, which takes advantage of and ruins the lives of others in order to make a profit, and many others support this practice. Just stop buying it, is not a proper argument, there are people with these problems.

If you are a salesman, there will always be two branches to think of. The 'Necessity' branch, and the 'Lifestyle' branch. Those two things are different. The necessity branch will have goods that solve a problem not created by oneself, thus there will be no reason to incentivize selling these goods, people will buy them because they are necessary. THe lifestyle branch is entirely different, and this is the branch microtransactions fits in under. In order to sell a lifestyle good, a problem will need to be created. In the context of a MMORPG, this will mean that something must be taken from the game itself, to prop up the market place in which the microtransactions are sold. In context with cosmetic microtransactions, this will most likely mean that in game, cosmetic sets or armor sets if you will, will be made to look ugly and uninteresting, to push you in the direction of the market place instead.

In order to incentivize the marketplace purchases, a problem must be created; that is the rule of a business. Microtransactions are also often designed in such a manner, that they are low cost; which makes the individual think that it is so little spending, might as well buy more. And before you know it, said buyer just bought sets for a price equal to that of five triple AAA titles. It is a literal problem in gaming today, along with uninspired design and lack of ideas and a willingness to take a risk, even if the game turns out just a niche.

This is why I implore a change in the business model. Keep the subscription fee to support the servers, to pay staff, and make a small profit too. But remove the microtransactions and add in a box price for the main game and bigger expansions instead. It is healthier for the game, it is healthier for the players, and it argueable assures the playerbase that the only incentive the developers have, is to make the game as fun as possible for the players, so that they remain subscribed.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Vhaeyne

halbarz wrote: »

That 15 is all you the player needs to play and "win" in this game.

A solid point that is very quotable.

halbarz wrote: »

I wouldn't even mind paying 20 Dollars monthly subscription fee, games are not cheap and anyone claiming that 60 Dollars is all they should ask for ... should realize that not everything has star wars in the title or Pokemon ... games people blindly buy

I have argued many times that I value premium fun at 10$ an hour, and lesser fun experiences at 2.5-5$ an hour. With MMOs I spend an average of 15$ a month and get at least 40 to 60 hours of fun unless the game is just that bad. I normally at least cap the character and feel out the end game before quitting.

I get the 10$ an for for premium fun from the 20$ ticket price for a 2 hour movie, or the 60-80$ theme park ticket cost per day on average (You end up being 6-8 hours). Movies and Theme parks are not even really that fun to me, but they are premium sources of fun.

That being said If Ashes was everything is says it is going to be, an 80$ sub would be fair. Especially considering I would save so much money not doing other things or buying other games. That would be 1$ per hour of fun assuming I spend 20 hours a week on the game. We all know I am going to be on at least 6 to 8 hours a day on work days... 16 to 18 hours a day on weekends...

Sounds crazy, but it seems like a good investment when otherwise I would just be buying 60$ games every week and being done with them by the weekend. A lot of my console friends live like this.

Vhaeyne

Noaani wrote: »

Point me to one recent MMO that does this.

$60 box cost, no subscription, no microtransactions.

Don't forget no paid "DLC"...

ariatras

I wanted to stay out of this, I really did. The OP puts it a lore more concisely and accurately than I ever could.

I want to particularly address the "It's just cosmetics" argument in regards to the cash shop.

So, first of all, the cosmetics can't really be called a microtransaction anymore. It's not all that micro.
Second of all, a point I have made many, many times already. Cosmetics, housing items, houses themselves, mounts etc are in fact an important aspect of an MMO. If you look at Final Fantasy 14 as a relatively recent example. The end-game there is practically this https://ffxiv.eorzeacollection.com/glamours

And developers know this, that's why there are entirely free games, without any pay to win that use this very thing as a pay model. And it's not just mobas. Fortnite does it too. And it works, because it's an important part, especially in an MMO in which the social aspect is paramount.

So I completely agree with the him saying "It's just cosmetics" is a bad argument.
Microtransactions are an absolute cancer and really need to be dialled back. I'd rather pay a higher subscription fee if they are that short on cash. And instead, have all the focus be on keeping me interested in the game. Make that cool cosmetic part of something in-game, make it difficult if you have to. Let me work towards it. And if you're not. Why not go all the way? Let me pay to have that boss slain so I can loot its corpse, and hand me the cosmetics it drops, blank out the stats if you feel that would be p2w. In the end, you're just making us pay for something that should have been in the game anyway.

Idoenjoycupcakes

Vhaeyne wrote: »

@Idoenjoycupcakes

Welcome, I took the time to read your post. Take the time to consider these points from a person who is not a fan of microtransactions as well.

My first point would be that the ship has sailed, and you are left on the dock shouting as the boat fades from view. The microtransactions are not going anywhere for Ashes specifically. This is not something that is up for debate or subject to review down the line. We can expect the current financial model to stay locked in until at least six months after the game releases. Only a catastrophe at that time would cause them to re-evaluate the payment model. Promises about pricing and microtransactions have already been made.

Second. Inflation has been brought up already, but everyone has different ways of explaining things so maybe my explanation will show you a different prospective.

"The idea that microtransactions is a necessity to keep a cost of 60 dollar on video games is ludicrous, especially when said corporations spend most money on advertising the game, than they now do for shipping the game; most of them no longer pay retailers and shipment of their products to said retailers, across lands and sea - keep that in mind."-You

Video games cost $60 for big budget games in the 1980s. Yes, they did have lower cost budget titles back then, but the price for a big budget game has been 60$ for most of video game history. This is a huge problem. Pick your year on any inflation calculator on the internet. Put in 60$ for that year and see what it is worth now. You will see that 60$ games cost 120-140 in 2021 dollars on average in the 80s and 90s. The key problem is that the scope of development for those games and the costs to product them has increased while the value of the dollar has gone down.

Literally everything related to game development cost more now, yet the 60$ price tag has remained. Just because they don't have to physically put the product on the shelf anymore does not magically offset all of the other costs related to both game development, and just running a company.

You might not like it. I certainly don't like it, but microtransactions are currently the best way for companies to support themselves and their products. In the case of Ashes they are trying their hardest to Avoid pay-to-win microtransactions. The only way they can sustain that is for cosmetic microtransactions to be successful longer term. Otherwise who knows what crazy pay models they will have to try?

Putting a box cost, and keeping the sub alone would not magically be the same as having no microtransactions. Microtransactions just add up faster and harder than one time box costs or subs.

What is actually good about microtransactions that does not get enough credit is that they can inflate the development budget of the game, and allow the game to see faster and smoother updates with more staffing.
I can tell you right now POE leagues would be every six months to a year if microtransactions were not successful for them.

Currently the thing we need to be fighting in the game industry is pay-to-win, and loot boxes. Things that are not featured in Ashes.

I don't expect to change your mind, but I would encourage you to consider how crazy inflation and development costs are for all things.

Noaani wrote: »

Idoenjoycupcakes wrote: »

But one can only wonder how some games remain insanely profitable with just a 60 dollar price tag and no microtransactions.

Point me to one recent MMO that does this.

$60 box cost, no subscription, no microtransactions.

MMOs are not the only games out in the industry. There have been multiple titles at the price of 60 dollars for several years now, and I doubt the production costs is much lower or much higher than it would be for a MMO. These game creates a nice profit even without microtransactions - microtransactions are only added as an extra layer of greed as admitted by Warner Bros in regards to Middle-earth: Shadow of War, it was far from necessary and the game was intentionally designed to lure player into the cash shop. Of course they only admitted to this after the game stopped selling copies for some brownie points.

Of course, MMOs are a special case as it requires running servers. Those costs are usually covered by a subscription fee, but in order for that to be a continued solution the MMO needs a playerbase. Time and time again we do see that MMOs with dwindling playerbases begins to make a switch from a subscription to a cash shop, due to the huge profitibility of the latter.

So yes, for a MMO to be sustainable in the long run on just a box price and subscription, it'll need a playerbase - it is why World of Warcraft's cash shop only gets bigger with every expansion.

So yeah, there is a point to be had. But fact of the matter is still, a box price alone is already a huge profit in the video game industry, and it usually sustains a studio for quite awhile. I doubt CD Project Red would be standing much longer if not. And I doubt they would receive any kind of other income for free as well.

halbarz wrote: »

While Noaani makes some very valid points, I only want to add one thing.

Cosmetics are optional, they will give you an advantage and there will be plenty of cosmetics in the game as well. BDO, for example, their store is "optional" but we all know that to succeed in that game you have to spend money on a million things.

Ashes are solving this by adding a subscription = a fixed cashflow of 15 a month per user. That 15 is all you the player needs to play and "win" in this game. The store is just there for you to support them or to dress up

I wouldn't even mind paying 20 Dollars monthly subscription fee, games are not cheap and anyone claiming that 60 Dollars is all they should ask for ... should realize that not everything has star wars in the title or Pokemon ... games people blindly buy

My whole point is that cosmetics in a RPG is not entirely optional, cosmetics are never optional. It is something that players strive for, it is put in as a reward for players. If cosmetics were just optional, then it would not be sold as often as it is.

It is why I personally believe that the statement: "It is just cosmetics" is silly. Now, it could be that the Ashes of Creation team pleasantly surprises me, but so far I have not seen a game studio or game publisher release a game with microtransactions, that have NOT been a detriment to the game. But I would love to see and experience otherwise - but that is the grounds for my worries. I think a box price and subscription are a better way, and of course a price for larger expansions.

Noaani

Idoenjoycupcakes wrote: »

MMOs are not the only games out in the industry.

True, but in a discussion about the costs/profits associated with an MMO, they are the only valid games to bring to the discussion - this is for reasons you know perfectly well yourself - the ongoing costs associated with them.

Intrepid is going to have massive bills from Amazon keeping this game live - it will be their second biggest expense after staff.

There is also the fact that MMO's are the far more complex than most other games. ESO was in development for more than twice as long as Skyrim, as an example (ESO was in development a year before Skyrim, yet released almost 30 months later).

This added complexity over other games adds cost to development. The cost of continual updates to MMO's after launch cost money, as do the expected bug fixes.[/quote]

So yeah, there is a point to be had. But fact of the matter is still, a box price alone is already a huge profit in the video game industry, and it usually sustains a studio for quite awhile. I doubt CD Project Red would be standing much longer if not. And I doubt they would receive any kind of other income for free as well.

Yes, a box price would cover the cost of development, along with some profit. Then a subscription is needed to keep the game running.

One thing you have admitted to here - whether knowingly or not, is that you agree that MMO's need two sources of income to remain afloat.

Some games have this as a box cost and subscription, and I'm sure that works well for them (though to be fair, I can't think of many recently that had this model).

Other games have a box cost, charge for expansions, have a subscription fee and STILL have a cash shop.

What Intrepid are doing is dropping the box cost. This is so that there is a very low barrier to entry in to the game - so more players will be willing to give it a go.

Without the box cost, the only option left is some form of cash shop. Since pay to win cash shops turn people off games in large numbers, Intrepid decided to make it a cosmetic only cash shop that only turn a small number of people away, and that small number of people are more than made up for with the people that try the game out due to the low barrier to entry.

Something I think people are forgetting is that games like WoW charge a box cost, charge a subscription fee, charge for expansions and still have a cash shop.

Ashes will have no box cost, will have no expansion cost, has a subscription and has a cash shop.

It is an improvement over the incumbent - stop complaining about it.

Vhaeyne

@Idoenjoycupcakes

You don't seem to appreciate how expensive game development can be. Yes, an handful of guys in their basement can crap out a hit in under a year, and make millions. That doesn't mean that game development is cheap. Just because some games are profitable at 60$, all game can be profitable at 60$. The fact is that every game is different and every company is different.

Another thing to consider is that microtransactions act kind of like flood gates. Let's say that a company needs 20% more funding to comfortably put out the game they promised. They can try to look for more investors, but that means that more people get a "say" in the direction of the game. It might become more about keeping investors happy than the players. An attractive option is selling cosmetics because it allows the company to maintain control of their vison for the game. The problem is that instead of getting a 20% increase in funds they get a 200% increase, and now they look greedy. (This was never the case for blizzard)

Only Intrepid knows why they went the cosmetic microtransactions route. Maybe it is greed? Clearly Intrepid decided that microtransactions for cosmetics was the best way to move forward years ago. Nothing is going to change that now. All we can really do is promise to quit if they make microtransactions more than they already are.

I am half expecting you to get frustrated and start linking "Jimquistion*" videos, but you seem to communicate better than the last handful of guys to bring this argument up. I agree with most of the sentiment about microtransactions being bad, but I accept the reality that they can do some good. If cosmetic microtransactions would have kept Wildstar or Darkfall 1 going. I would gladly welcome them.

Karthos

Your basic premise is flawed. Not all microtransactions are bad.

Case in point. Microtransactions are paying a small additional fee to obtain something that you don't really need, but want. Correct?

In that case, most restaurants charge extra if you want an extra side of bacon. You don't need the bacon, but you want it. And you will pay a small additional charge for it. Bacon is good. Ergo, the purchase is good.

Ipso facto, some microtransactions can be good.

And before you throw out "but Karthos, it only pertains to online purchases", you can buy breakfast with an extra side of bacon online.

https://www.ihop.com/en/menu/sides/hickory-smoked-bacon-strips

Merek

I don't care about cosmetic microtransactions, they're the mostly harmless, unless you're playing BDO. In BDO, the developers specifically chose to make it so all armor you could craft or get from drops looked identical, heavily incentivizing buying an armor cosmetic. Then there are other games where all base game, non-purchased armors look terrible, but all effort is put into the microtransaction armors. I'm hoping Intrepid doesn't forget that there are sets of armor outside their premium shop. Here's hoping they also maintain a serious theme with what they allow people to buy, the first time they put a set of yeezy's or a sci-fi cosmetic on the store, I'm out.

Jahlon

Idoenjoycupcakes wrote: »

Hello.

especially when said corporations spend most money on advertising the game

Can you provide one example of a game where they actually spent more on the advertising the game then they did on development of the game?

Idoenjoycupcakes wrote: »

while also being seen as a convenience for other players, for reasons unknown to me.

That convenience is the ability to play the game. Microtransactions allow people who cannot afford a $60 box price to play the game. Other games have a F2P model with optional microtransactions. You allow those that can pay more to pay more, so those that cannot pay more, don't have to.

Idoenjoycupcakes wrote: »

Hello.

If you are a salesman, there will always be two branches to think of. The 'Necessity' branch, and the 'Lifestyle' branch.

These two things exist regardless of a salesman or not.

Bread, Water, Vegetables, Ramen, these are necessities. That ketchup you put on your burger (luxury) with cheese (luxury) and bacon (luxury) is a luxury.

[/quote]

Idoenjoycupcakes wrote: »

In order to incentivize the marketplace purchases, a problem must be created; that is the rule of a business.

So the pool guy who sells you a pool ran around to your house for the first part of summer cranking up your heat when you were looking?

I think you mean a problem must exist, not must be created.

Idoenjoycupcakes wrote: »

Microtransactions are also often designed in such a manner, that they are low cost; which makes the individual think that it is so little spending, might as well buy more. And before you know it, said buyer just bought sets for a price equal to that of five triple AAA titles. It is a literal problem in gaming today, along with uninspired design and lack of ideas and a willingness to take a risk, even if the game turns out just a niche.

So, because other games have had shitty business practices when it comes to cosmetics, we should have Intrepid change their entire business model because the guy who isn't an expert has a really bad argument?

If you were arguing for a box price plus a month sub your argument could have had some traction. I can make the argument for a box price and a monthly sub, but that's not really what you are making an argument about.

You are making an argument against a cosmetic cash shop, and you really didn't make an good argument at that.

CriminalCupcake

Idoenjoycupcakes wrote: »

Yes, I do target all microtransaction, because as I pointed out in my post, they are essentially the same. "They are just cosmetics" is a terrible argument. To say that it has no effect on gameplay is ludicrous

This makes me think you play games like League of Leg and think skins help you win... Cuz trust me, your costume doesn't make you stronker*.

Enigmatic Sage

if people are willing to pay for additional cosmetics that is on them. I may not agree with higher price margins some other companies/corporations have tried to capitalize on in the industry.

An issue I would have with cosmetics would be that if they overstepped the boundary of world immersion vs theme park, especially for a game like this.

From my understanding, the cosmetics available through these pre-order packs are variants of things that are going to be found in the world already and more than likely will have variations of themselves aside from the pre-order exclusives in similarity. In a way, it's supporting the development of the game both physically through design progression/coding and financially.

If they didn't have obtainable variant options in-game and purchasable options for launch, then there would be issues with-in the community of the game and its success. Especially if the pre-order exclusives were going to be "cooler" or more "appealing" than options at launch.

Another issue I would see would be the dreaded RNG microtransactions that are essentially gambling. But that doesn't really need to be addressed as other corporations and companies in the industry have taken the brunt of that ridicule.

Vhaeyne

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

From my understanding, the cosmetics available through these pre-order packs are variants of things that are going to be found in the world already and more than likely will have variations of themselves aside from the pre-order exclusives in similarity. In a way, it's supporting the development of the game both physically through design progression/coding and financially.

Only parts of the cosmetics may be used by NPCs as needed. This was clarified by Steven recently.
Yes, in a way you are supporting the Dev teams incentive to create appearances that might not otherwise get created, and injecting funds to Intrepid that in theory goes to development.

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

If they didn't have obtainable variant options in-game and purchasable options for launch, then there would be issues with-in the community of the game and its success. Especially if the pre-order exclusives were going to be "cooler" or more "appealing" than options at launch.

Another issue I would see would be the dreaded RNG microtransactions that are essentially gambling. But that doesn't really need to be addressed as other corporations and companies in the industry have taken the brunt of that ridicule.

The appearances are said to be inferior to what is obtainable at end-game, but also inferior as they are full body sets that can't be pieced apart or dyed. This limits their use and value. They might only be cooler on a case by case basis or to someone who never achieves any end-game gear.

Warth

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

if people are willing to pay for additional cosmetics that is on them. I may not agree with higher price margins some other companies/corporations have tried to capitalize on in the industry.

An issue I would have with cosmetics would be that if they overstepped the boundary of world immersion vs theme park, especially for a game like this.

From my understanding, the cosmetics available through these pre-order packs are variants of things that are going to be found in the world already and more than likely will have variations of themselves aside from the pre-order exclusives in similarity. In a way, it's supporting the development of the game both physically through design progression/coding and financially.

If they didn't have obtainable variant options in-game and purchasable options for launch, then there would be issues with-in the community of the game and its success. Especially if the pre-order exclusives were going to be "cooler" or more "appealing" than options at launch.

Another issue I would see would be the dreaded RNG microtransactions that are essentially gambling. But that doesn't really need to be addressed as other corporations and companies in the industry have taken the brunt of that ridicule.

@Enigmatic Sage

There will NOT be obtainable variants of the preorder cosmetics in the game. This has been confirmed twice by IS.

Once during the November QnA. Once a couple of weeks back in a forum post by Steven

Enigmatic Sage

Vhaeyne wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

From my understanding, the cosmetics available through these pre-order packs are variants of things that are going to be found in the world already and more than likely will have variations of themselves aside from the pre-order exclusives in similarity. In a way, it's supporting the development of the game both physically through design progression/coding and financially.

Only parts of the cosmetics may be used by NPCs as needed. This was clarified by Steven recently.
Yes, in a way you are supporting the Dev teams incentive to create appearances that might not otherwise get created, and injecting funds to Intrepid that in theory goes to development.

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

If they didn't have obtainable variant options in-game and purchasable options for launch, then there would be issues with-in the community of the game and its success. Especially if the pre-order exclusives were going to be "cooler" or more "appealing" than options at launch.

Another issue I would see would be the dreaded RNG microtransactions that are essentially gambling. But that doesn't really need to be addressed as other corporations and companies in the industry have taken the brunt of that ridicule.

The appearances are said to be inferior to what is obtainable at end-game, but also inferior as they are full body sets that can't be pieced apart or dyed. This limits their use and value. They might only be cooler on a case by case basis or to someone who never achieves any end-game gear.

interesting,
from my understanding it was said that NPC's may have identical pieces as well as variants within the world, but variants of them will be available to players but that those specifically identical to the pre-order ones will not be as they are intended to be exclusive.

As expected, end game rewards are something to look forward to through progression for the player base.

Enigmatic Sage

Warth wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

if people are willing to pay for additional cosmetics that is on them. I may not agree with higher price margins some other companies/corporations have tried to capitalize on in the industry.

An issue I would have with cosmetics would be that if they overstepped the boundary of world immersion vs theme park, especially for a game like this.

From my understanding, the cosmetics available through these pre-order packs are variants of things that are going to be found in the world already and more than likely will have variations of themselves aside from the pre-order exclusives in similarity. In a way, it's supporting the development of the game both physically through design progression/coding and financially.

If they didn't have obtainable variant options in-game and purchasable options for launch, then there would be issues with-in the community of the game and its success. Especially if the pre-order exclusives were going to be "cooler" or more "appealing" than options at launch.

Another issue I would see would be the dreaded RNG microtransactions that are essentially gambling. But that doesn't really need to be addressed as other corporations and companies in the industry have taken the brunt of that ridicule.

@Enigmatic Sage

There will NOT be obtainable variants of the preorder cosmetics in the game. This has been confirmed twice by IS.

Once during the November QnA. Once a couple of weeks back in a forum post by Steven

mind sharing that link with the exact wording? would be much appreciated

Warth

its on the wiki. I'm not your secretary

Enigmatic Sage

Warth wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

Warth wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

if people are willing to pay for additional cosmetics that is on them. I may not agree with higher price margins some other companies/corporations have tried to capitalize on in the industry.

An issue I would have with cosmetics would be that if they overstepped the boundary of world immersion vs theme park, especially for a game like this.

From my understanding, the cosmetics available through these pre-order packs are variants of things that are going to be found in the world already and more than likely will have variations of themselves aside from the pre-order exclusives in similarity. In a way, it's supporting the development of the game both physically through design progression/coding and financially.

If they didn't have obtainable variant options in-game and purchasable options for launch, then there would be issues with-in the community of the game and its success. Especially if the pre-order exclusives were going to be "cooler" or more "appealing" than options at launch.

Another issue I would see would be the dreaded RNG microtransactions that are essentially gambling. But that doesn't really need to be addressed as other corporations and companies in the industry have taken the brunt of that ridicule.

@Enigmatic Sage

There will NOT be obtainable variants of the preorder cosmetics in the game. This has been confirmed twice by IS.

Once during the November QnA. Once a couple of weeks back in a forum post by Steven

mind sharing that link with the exact wording? would be much appreciated

its on the wiki. I'm not your secretary

LOL... you're a friendly one

Vhaeyne

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

LOL... you're a friendly one

https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/271565#Comment_271565

Enigmatic Sage

Vhaeyne wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

LOL... you're a friendly one

https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/271565#Comment_271565

thank you. I do recall them mentioning something about mounts and the exclusives in the pre-order packs versus their variants in the wild in the one of the latest streams. I could be crossing some information up. But if they were to do that with mounts/skins, I don't see why they wouldn't do something similar with the cosmetics. But, after reading into this I can see they mentioned taking pieces of said sets and utilizing them in combinations for players. That is what I have mixed up. thank you for providing the link. That's still cool to me.

Oh cool! I forgot about the legendary items as well.
Thanks!

Wandering Mist

@Idoenjoycupcakes I'm not sure if you've seen it already but Steven has addressed this issue in the past:

https://youtu.be/JBCY-A-GUqI?t=4641

Now whether you agree or disagree with his reasons is up to you. Personally I have no problem with a subscription and cosmetic only cash shop. The only time micro-transactions bother me is when they affect gameplay in some way. There have been many examples of this like Assassin's Creed Odyssey gimping exp gains to encourage players to buy exp boosts from the mtx store. That is NOT what Intrepid is doing here and it's important to note that.

After all, a game has to make money.

Child Item