Monthly fee and microtransactions?

You forgot these:
No p2w
No box price

Note: Of the two I much prefer a simple monthly fee. Microtransactions IMO have ruined the MMORPG space.

profk wrote: »

Note: Of the two I much prefer a simple monthly fee. Microtransactions IMO have ruined the MMORPG space.

Name one AAA MMO that only has a subscription fee and nothing else.

Myself Im willing to pay an initial box price but it should come with the equivalent number of months free, so what Im really doing is pre-paying a few months.

SirChancelot

What @George Black said.

If the microtransactions are only for cosmetics that don't effect gameplay, then that's on the people who throw intrepid money.

The shop will only sell cosmetics.
I am not too crazy for cosmetics in games, however you need to realize that with todays technology and production capabilities, there are standards that need to be met when making a good mmo.
And that's expensive.

profk wrote: »

Myself Im willing to pay an initial box price but it should come with the equivalent number of months free, so what Im really doing is pre-paying a few months.

That doesn't answer the question.

I would personally like it if the game was free, I really enjoy not spending money.

However, we need to pay for the game to be run, to be worked on and to be improved upon.

I asked you to name one AAA MMO that only has a subscription fee, and nothing else. You failed to do this.

That is because every AAA MMO needs at least two streams of revenue. There is a box cost, a monthly fee, and microtransactions.

Some games, such as WoW, actually use all three.

Ashes NEEDS to use two of these to remain viable as a product, and for Intrepid to remain viable a a company.

Having a box cost that also provides a subscription worth the same value of that box cost is in fact no box cost - one could argue that Ashes has a $15 box cost, and that cost comes with one months worth of subscription - but that is effectively no box cost.

In order for it to be an actual box cost, the game would need to be selling for $45+, and coming with one month of subscription time.

Point is, every AAA MMO has two revenue streams. It isn't double dipping, as you state, it is simply remaining viable.

Talents

WoW - Box price, sub, mtx
FF14 - Box price, sub, mtx
ESO - Box price, "optional" sub, mtx
BDO - Box price, mtx
OSRS - Sub, mtx (bonds)
GW2 - Box price, mtx
RS3 - Sub, mtx
New World - Box price, mtx

Basically, good luck finding one without more than 1 revenue stream unless it's a F2P P2W one

"I asked you to name one AAA MMO that only has a subscription fee, and nothing else. You failed to do this."

Actually I just didnt see your post til now.

Guild Wars 1 and 2
AEON when it was subscription
Age of Conan when it was subscription
DCUO before it went F2P
WOW fror years (I have no idea what ist doing now)
City of Heroes.
Secret World when it was subscription

Those are just the ones I played, there were many more.

Quite a few games survived well on subscription alone.

Arenanet has quite successfully demonstrated that you can just live on box price if you predict your back-end expenses well and build them into the box price up front.

A subscription game puts the focus on *entertainment*. if people are being entertained they continue to play and pay, if not they stop subscribing.

F2P puts the focus on selling people shit and distorts the whole game around it. I was CTO of 3 companies that did "F2P" games and I hated what we did to their designs to make those financially successful.

The lure of microtransactions was that they were going to make the game "free". Now instead, we are back to the subscription fee PLUS an added tax?

MTX are garbage that distract developers from creating fun and turn those unwilling to pay them into second class citizens of the game community.

profk wrote: »

"I asked you to name one AAA MMO that only has a subscription fee, and nothing else. You failed to do this."

Actually I just didnt see your post til now.

Guild Wars 1 and 2
AEON when it was subscription
Age of Conan when it was subscription
DCUO before it went F2P
WOW fror years (I have no idea what ist doing now)
City of Heroes.
Secret World when it was subscription

Those are just the ones I played, there were many more.

Quite a few games survived well on subscription alone.

My friend, you would have been better off just pretending this thread didnt exist.

Keep in mind, your claim is that the above games have a subscription fee and nothing else.

Guild Wars (either of them) never had subscription fees at all. GW had an initial box cost, and that was it for a while. Then when that stopped selling but people kept playing (requiring the servers to be kept on), they added microtransactions. GW2 had microtransactions from launch (the gem store).

Right here, in an effort to point out AAA MMO's with a subscription fee and nothing else you have immediately hit on two MMO's that have literally no subscription fee, but both a box cost and microtransactions.

It doesnt get better for you after that though.

Aion, what I assume you mean by Aeon, had a box cost and subscription at launch. It is now free to play, though with microtransactions (and is highly P2W from what I understand).

Age of Conan had a box cost and subscription. You are trying to find games with just a subscription (ie, no box cost).

DCUO had a box cost and subscription at launch.

WoW has always had a box cost and subscription, and now also had microtransactions.

CoH/CoV had a box cost for each game at launch, as well as a subscription.

Secret World launched with a box cost.

I am wondering if you are simply unfamiliar with the term "box cost" and the fact that Ashes doesnt have one - as literally every game you listed above had a box cost at launch.

Reading a bit fast are you?

"Arenanet has quite successfully demonstrated that you can just live on box price if you predict your back-end expenses well and build them into the box price up front."

As for the rest, all of the other games gave you back your box cost in free sub months.

Thank you for playing.

//plonk

JustVine

Pretty sure GW1 is famously not a sub based game...

Anyway, I get that you are upset about microtransactions. But a purely cosmetic based shop is not the problem. The sub pays for core development.You have to have way to pay modelers. Good graphic designers aren't cheap. Neither are live mods, back end devs, pr, marketing, and development staff. Subs are for core development and backend only.

I doubt you would argue we should be getting the quantity and quality of a well implemented cosmetic shop as part of the sub right? You don't want all those pet skins and costumes 'with purchase'? So where should the extra money come from? The people who want the extra superficial product to begin with. Not the regular player who just wants to play the game. If you include these with sub, people like George Black don't play because the sub fee is now too high. If you have no cosmetic shop you don't get the bonus money from people like me. Plain and simple.

It is an excellent way to fund the graphics part of a team post launch for non-core content. I am more than happy for the money raised on costumes to help everyone including myself get cool boss fights, new in game obtainable armor models depending on the designs, and excellent marketing to attract new players or whatever.

profk wrote: »

As for the rest, all of the other games gave you back your box cost in free sub months.

No they didnt.

Some of them did as promotions, but most of them absolutely did not.

WoW, as an example, had an initial box cost of $60, and that came with one months worth of subscription.

Either way, they still had a box cost.

If you cant affort a ferrari go buy with a bicycle.
At this point you are here to cause shit. Nobody else has a problem.
Joined 2 days ago?
Go get a job or smthg.

McMackMuck

I am happy with the proposed monetization of Ashes.
$15/month minimum, optionally pay extra if you want to increase your wardrobe (admittedly a wardrobe which also has mounts and building skins!).
For me, the only bitter pill to swallow is that a low level character can look like they have awe inspiring end-game gear if they bought the cosmetics.
If they need to have a cosmetics shop to cover the game costs then that's how it has to be.

JustVine

This isn't going to happen but, it would be cool if there were tiers of the cash shop tied to level. Most stuff is readily available especially rp focused ones but some building, mount, pet, and gear skins

daveywavey

profk wrote: »

Looking at the packs it seems to me like the game si intended to have a monthly fee and microtransactions.
Is this true? It feels like double dipping to me.

The microtransactions are going to just be cosmetic. People won't be able to power past you by spending RL cash. And, it's an extra source of income to help make the game better. You're not going to be forced into buying anything. For you, if you're not buying cosmetics, the game can indeed just have the one monthly fee "dip".

Azreil

I’m not a fan of microtransactions at all. I’d much rather have a box cost + subscription. In general I’d like every player to have the same gaming experience, regardless of the size of your wallet. I think games with any type of microtransactions often create systems that reduce the in-game experience for the sake of monetization. And that definitely include visuals.

I know of the pledge Intrepid has made about paid cosmetics being non-tradable, the game being non-p2w etc. It is however also important that the in-game cosmetics have equally desirable and unique appearances. Preferably even better. At least to me, an important factor in grinding to obtain specific gear is it’s visual appearance (as well as stats ofc). If 50% of players are running around in paid armor and the rest of us can’t get something at least equally stunning by working for it in-game, I’ll eventually lose motivation. If gear were to be ranked by visual appearance alone, I don’t think paid cosmetics should be created with higher than A-rank, while in-game gear should have visual appearances up to S-rank.

Having the microtransactions in the first place also creates the risk of them becoming too dependent on that revenue. The distance to bad decisions for the sake of increased profits is unfortunately not very far. It would certainly not be the first game to be guilty of moving in such a direction.

I remain hopeful though.

Odal wrote: »

profk wrote: »

Looking at the packs it seems to me like the game si intended to have a monthly fee and microtransactions.
Is this true? It feels like double dipping to me.

Agree, that's the one thing I dislike with Ashes. Cash-shop. Allready.
You want to pay subscription to avoid having any cash-shops ruining the game. Not to have them both.
I think buying cosmetics is almost as bad as P2w, because Cosmetics is a huge part of an MMORPG, and if you can buy things for real money to look cool. Then what is the point?

I hate that this is the new standard of games. I would normally never play a game with a cash-shop if it's an MMORPG or RPG, but Ashes can be an exception knowing that Steven is very well aware of the problem with Pw2 and all of that, and has a good vision and ideal for the game. But still..

You just made this account.

George Black wrote: »

Odal wrote: »

profk wrote: »

Looking at the packs it seems to me like the game si intended to have a monthly fee and microtransactions.
Is this true? It feels like double dipping to me.

Agree, that's the one thing I dislike with Ashes. Cash-shop. Allready.
You want to pay subscription to avoid having any cash-shops ruining the game. Not to have them both.
I think buying cosmetics is almost as bad as P2w, because Cosmetics is a huge part of an MMORPG, and if you can buy things for real money to look cool. Then what is the point?

I hate that this is the new standard of games. I would normally never play a game with a cash-shop if it's an MMORPG or RPG, but Ashes can be an exception knowing that Steven is very well aware of the problem with Pw2 and all of that, and has a good vision and ideal for the game. But still..

You just made this account.

Fuck it. Ill take it back.
Sus as it may seem that a new acc takes aim at the cash shop, I find myself agreeing about the "new stardard of gaming", which is gear looks for real money.

Still it is what it is in 2021, and since it doesnt affect progression people should temper their opinions as to avoid spreading misinformation.

There is no p2w. That's the main thing.

Odal wrote: »

profk wrote: »

Looking at the packs it seems to me like the game si intended to have a monthly fee and microtransactions.
Is this true? It feels like double dipping to me.

Agree, that's the one thing I dislike with Ashes. Cash-shop. Allready.
You want to pay subscription to avoid having any cash-shops ruining the game. Not to have them both.
I think buying cosmetics is almost as bad as P2w, because Cosmetics is a huge part of an MMORPG, and if you can buy things for real money to look cool. Then what is the point?

I hate that this is the new standard of games. I would normally never play a game with a cash-shop if it's an MMORPG or RPG, but Ashes can be an exception knowing that Steven is very well aware of the problem with Pw2 and all of that, and has a good vision and ideal for the game. But still..

I'm actually quite happy with the payment system, as long as they keep to what they have stated.

It will be the cheapest MMO I have ever played.

Since in most games I tend to change my look about once every two years, even if I stick to that time frame, and even if I go full cash shop, I'll spend a whole lot less than I would in a game with a box cost and yearly paid expansions.

Odal wrote: »

The cheapest? I paid 12.99 for WoW and could change my looks in TBC. For Free.

No, you paid $60 for WoW, and then a subscription of $15 a month (or $13 a month if you paid for 6 months at a time). You also bought each and every expansion that WoW has released.

That $15 a month is the same as what Intrepid are asking you to pay for Ashes. There may or may not be a multi-month package in Ashes that may or may not see you paying a total of $13 a month for the game.

HOWEVER, little one, you were paying $15 a month in 2004, inflation alone would make that $21.72 today. Even your $13 a month would work out to be $18.83 today - which is more than Intrepid is asking for at $15 in todays money, not 2004's money.

So, the subscription is the same in basic terms, significantly less in real terms, and Intrepid are not asking for a box cost or for you to pay for expansions.

Take that $60 every 2 years or so you would spend on expansions (adjusted for inflation that would now be $86.98), in addition to the $6.72 per month ($161.28 over two years), and you have $248.26 (adjusted for inflation) every two years that Blizzard required you to pay, that Intrepid does not.

That is a shitload of cosmetics, tbh. If you spend less than that on them, then Ashes will be cheaper for you, too.

daveywavey

Odal wrote: »

248 seems very reasonable to me for two years. Way way better than Cash-shops. Way better.

To be honest, I'd much rather have a cosmetic-only cash shop that I don't ever need to spend in, than have to pay an extra $248 to get rid of it. As long as it stays cosmetic-only, and we don't get any more of those fricking corgi abominations, then I really don't see the problem.

cyanideinsanity

profk wrote: »

Reading a bit fast are you?

"Arenanet has quite successfully demonstrated that you can just live on box price if you predict your back-end expenses well and build them into the box price up front."

As for the rest, all of the other games gave you back your box cost in free sub months.

Thank you for playing.

//plonk

Is this why gw2 went f2p, has cosmetic mtx let you buy gold via gem conversion, and sold unbreakable gathering tools that are character bound? I havent played in years so i dont know exactly how those tools are.

cyanideinsanity

Odal wrote: »

cyanideinsanity wrote: »

profk wrote: »

Reading a bit fast are you?

"Arenanet has quite successfully demonstrated that you can just live on box price if you predict your back-end expenses well and build them into the box price up front."

As for the rest, all of the other games gave you back your box cost in free sub months.

Thank you for playing.

//plonk

Is this why gw2 went f2p, has cosmetic mtx let you buy gold via gem conversion, and sold unbreakable gathering tools that are character bound? I havent played in years so i dont know exactly how those tools are.

It's probably to increase player base more than anything. MMORPG:s playerbase dwindle over time, so while Gw2 was really succesful without this bullshit, it's still in the nature of things that the amount of players dwindle and then they do moves like this.

That's my guess anyway.

Funny thing is gw2 had all but the f2p aspect since launch i believe. Or at least since around when i started playing shortly before living world season one in 2013.

cyanideinsanity

Odal wrote: »

cyanideinsanity wrote: »

Odal wrote: »

cyanideinsanity wrote: »

profk wrote: »

Reading a bit fast are you?

"Arenanet has quite successfully demonstrated that you can just live on box price if you predict your back-end expenses well and build them into the box price up front."

As for the rest, all of the other games gave you back your box cost in free sub months.

Thank you for playing.

//plonk

Is this why gw2 went f2p, has cosmetic mtx let you buy gold via gem conversion, and sold unbreakable gathering tools that are character bound? I havent played in years so i dont know exactly how those tools are.

It's probably to increase player base more than anything. MMORPG:s playerbase dwindle over time, so while Gw2 was really succesful without this bullshit, it's still in the nature of things that the amount of players dwindle and then they do moves like this.

That's my guess anyway.

Funny thing is gw2 had all but the f2p aspect since launch i believe. Or at least since around when i started playing shortly before living world season one in 2013.

When I played Gw2 in the very start, they had nothing of it from what I can remember. I don't know what happend after that. I didn't like Gw2. Played it for like two weeks, maybe a month at most.

Perhaps not all of that was on launch, but at least the seeds were there in march 2012 prelauch. https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/mike-obrien-on-microtransactions-in-guild-wars-2/

Gizban

And don't forget: a sub makes it hurt when a wanker or cheater gets banned.

Gizban

Odal wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

Odal wrote: »

248 seems very reasonable to me for two years. Way way better than Cash-shops. Way better.

To be honest, I'd much rather have a cosmetic-only cash shop that I don't ever need to spend in, than have to pay an extra $248 to get rid of it. As long as it stays cosmetic-only, and we don't get any more of those fricking corgi abominations, then I really don't see the problem.

I don't agree. I think cosmetics is a huge part of an MMORPG. I can still remember when I played WoW for the first time and saw a min maxing dude who was allready lvl 60 when I was lvl 30 on a skeletal warhorse. It was so cool.
If you could just buy it in a shop - who cares. ZzzzZzzz... ruins the game.

And buying expansions, releasing expansions makes it so you have something to look forward to. Especially for collectors of boxes and stuff.

What is WoWs end game? Get cool looking gear.
Not what AoC is about.