Monetization

I am really discouraged to hear that the monetization will be coming from cosmetics. Cosmetics are a big part of the immersion of an mmorpg for me, a long-time role player. Having to pay for cosmetics with real money takes player customization out of the game and makes me enjoy it less.
Player customization is one of the most important features of a game for me. I don't necessarily mean face sliders either! I mean collecting things in game that are unique and special to my character. Collection is a huge feature to me in any mmorpg, but I do not like to pay extra for it as it feels like the fun of playing the game...
Things like outfits, house items, pets, and mounts are what I am assuming is going to be monetized. I feel that this added art could be continuously compensated fairly through a monthly fee.
These things add to the experience of playing the game... like rare items, specialty clothing shops, achievement items, etc.
It gives more to do in the game itself when specialty cosmetic items are earned. A monthly subscription fee is something many mmo players are comfortable and willing to pay for an engaging game. I would be willing to pay more than the average for a game with consistent "free" cosmetics being added to collect!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

daveywavey

Iridianny wrote: »

Boanergese wrote: »

You are like the 100th person to start a post like this. Check the forums.

Seems like it's important to many of their player base, before the game is even out yet, and should be taken more seriously.

I don't think that was their point. Let me put it another way for you: "There have been posts like this before, and the 'Sub only with optional cosmetics' method is still here.

Your post suggests you weren't aware that the main income was from a monthly fee. Hopefully now you know this, you feel better about the game.

Iridianny

daveywavey wrote: »

I don't think that was their point. Let me put it another way for you: "There have been posts like this before, and the 'Sub only with optional cosmetics' method is still here.

Your post suggests you weren't aware that the main income was from a monthly fee. Hopefully now you know this, you feel better about the game.

I know that wasn't their point. I was making a point using their logic that if there have been hundreds of other posts like mine, AoC's potential customers are making a request hundreds of times and perhaps it should be considered regardless that the current method "is still here." The game isn't out yet by the way and there is always room to change a make better decisions.

As for what my post suggested, I was stating that a monthly fee is already something people are comfortable with and raising it more than the average in place of cash shops, something many people dislike, might be an idea to consider!
Like Franquito said:

Franquito wrote: »

The excuse that a box price and subscription makes the barrier of entry to high is really a cop out. Ashes could charge $100 entry + $30 subscription fee and they'd be perfectly fine. The fact that people can't stomach a slight price increase to not have a cash shop baffles me. Subscriptions have been $15/mo since 2004 while everything else has gone up in price. $30/mo is not a lot of money for someone with a fulltime job. People pay $200/mo for cable ffs.

Biccus

Personally I think just a sub and a store for people to spend extra on cosmetics is fine. They’ll make much more money than if they do a box price and it’s optional.
Now you need to stop trying to say p2w wouldn’t be a bad thing vs skins.. it only shows how little you understand the games principles.

I will say I’m against the full body costumes though.. I don’t like the whole robe over heavy armour concept at all.

Iridianny

Biccus wrote: »

Now you need to stop trying to say p2w wouldn’t be a bad thing vs skins.. it only shows how little you understand the games principles.

I am saying they are similar in terms of how it affects different types of players not that it should actually replace the other. It seems very hard for people to have any sort of sympathy with this. AoC said there are many types of progression besides combat. That was a core principle.
So, if that's the case, let me give you an example. I should be able to be a baker as my gameplay. Now, it the "baker" costume costs $20 on the cash shop, my entire gameplay has a barrier to entry that no one else had. I think it's more logical and fair to make that needed revenue a box cost or higher monthly fees so everyone has a quality experience.

daveywavey

Iridianny wrote: »

So, if that's the case, let me give you an example. I should be able to be a baker as my gameplay. Now, it the "baker" costume costs $20 on the cash shop, my entire gameplay has a barrier to entry that no one else had. I think it's more logical and fair to make that needed revenue a box cost or higher monthly fees so everyone has a quality experience.

So, you want to be a baker with a baker costume.

Without a cosmetic shop, you're not getting that costume at all, cos there's no real reason for them to bother creating something so niche. So, you've just paid extra (for the box cost) and still don't have the "entire gameplay" you want. Your barrier has just become waaaaaay bigger.

With a cosmetic shop, you've saved the money from not having to pay the box cost, and you've got the cash to spend on the costume. For those buying pre-release, you can just buy one less beer on a weekend for a few months, and you've saved the cash you need for the Pack. If having to have the baker's hat for your baker gameplay is that important to you, then you'll take the "-1 beer" hit.

Biccus

Iridianny wrote: »

let me give you an example. I should be able to be a baker as my gameplay. Now, it the "baker" costume costs $20 on the cash shop, my entire gameplay has a barrier to entry that no one else had.

I mean in your example you’re spending $20 on a costume vs $60 box price. That’s not a valid complaint imo.
It’s also not a barrier to entry. I’m going to take a wild guess and say you can pick up a white hat and an apron from a market place in game.

Noaani

Iridianny wrote: »

So, if that's the case, let me give you an example. I should be able to be a baker as my gameplay. Now, it the "baker" costume costs $20 on the cash shop, my entire gameplay has a barrier to entry that no one else had. I think it's more logical and fair to make that needed revenue a box cost or higher monthly fees so everyone has a quality experience.

No, your barrier to entry is just the same as everyone else's. You pay the subscription fee and gain access to teh game.

If you want something more specific from the game, such as a baker costume, that is an extra that you want. It isn't a requirement for entry to the game.

You do NOT get to decide what constitutes entry to the game. It is NOT an arbitrary thing.

If it were, I would then be able to complain that the barrier to entry for me is several dozen hours of effort in order to get leveled up to the level cap - which is where I consider the game to begin.

Stop your whining.

AidanKD

Haven't gone through all the comments but seeing there is still a back and forth, you must be very firmly against the Subscription/Cash Shop Model. It's perfectly fine for you to dislike cash shops, but I think that there isn't anything wrong with the Cash Shop as it will exist once the game goes life. It's a way for people to continue to support the developers while also investing into something that brings them enjoyment.

Now, if you had an issue exclusively with them locking the monthly cosmetics behind the high price barrier alongside the alpha/beta keys, then I would probably support you there. Alot of people here would be happy to spend a more nominal amount just to buy a cosmetic, alas is not the case, and I think that would be a reasonable opinion to have.

But I think like most games, people who wear cash shop items, aren't considered anymore noteworthy than in game items. If we assume as Steven has said, that in game earnable gear will look as good or better than cash shop items, then it just means that you might be more impressed by someone's gear with said in game difficult to attain armour/mount.

I don't think that takes away from your or anyone else's experience if someone decides to cash out on some glam.

The shop will have no pay to win, cosmetic only and that's perfectly fine for a cash shop. I probably won't bother but I know friends of mine do like to get a few cosmetics here and then because they like it, and we can have different opinions without it harming anyone's experience.

Iridianny

daveywavey wrote: »

Without a cosmetic shop, you're not getting that costume at all, cos there's no real reason for them to bother creating something so niche. So, you've just paid extra (for the box cost) and still don't have the "entire gameplay" you want. Your barrier has just become waaaaaay bigger.

With a cosmetic shop, you've saved the money from not having to pay the box cost, and you've got the cash to spend on the costume. For those buying pre-release, you can just buy one less beer on a weekend for a few months, and you've saved the cash you need for the Pack. If having to have the baker's hat for your baker gameplay is that important to you, then you'll take the "-1 beer" hit.

& @Biccus

It's not about the one costume. You are all being so narrow minded about this and you are wasting your time trying to change my mind.
I don't necessarily want to be a baker...

my point is, they have said themselves there are more ways to progress than combat! You can be a mount breeder, a tavern owner, a baker, etc...
If you are the 1/4 of the player base that are wanting to play that part of the game, it now has the burden of being monetized.
I'd rather pay $60 once than $20 multiple times to get the furniture for the shop, the different costumes, etc, etc, etc.
They were trying to appeal to people who enjoy social parts of mmo's with their principles of making many ways of progression and not the typical xp to level 100 and done. If you understood mmo's, you'd know there are multiple aspects of the game and multiple types of players that need to be appealed to for it to be successful and not another dead end like the rest of them.

Noaani wrote: »

If it were, I would then be able to complain that the barrier to entry for me is several dozen hours of effort in order to get leveled up to the level cap - which is where I consider the game to begin.

Stop your whining.

In response:

Franquito wrote: »

I hate that argument that you have to play an MMO for 100+ hours to start to see the fun. That's just another cop out for poor game design.

Kovrm

No one is trying to change your mind as far as I'm aware. Just telling you that the majority don't care about your dislike for a cosmetic shop, and that it's been discussed to death. Intrepid has chosen the cosmetic shop and monthly sub and it's not going to change. End of discussion.

Iridianny

Kovrm wrote: »

it's been discussed to death. End of discussion.

Nah. People can still have different ideas, and share them. If it was truly the end of the discussion, none of you would have bothered posting on here at all.

AidanKD

StevenSharif wrote: »

Hello friends, a quick clarification on the shop cosmetics.

There will not be recolors or material swaps on the monthly cosmetics as a means to populate additional achievements in game by player characters. There will however be variants of the cosmetics for NPC populations including quest-givers, guards, merchants and creatures. Additionally, from an armor standpoint, we cut armor sets up into many different pieces. These pieces can sometimes be used as part of other sets, that may include helmets, wrists, gloves etc. So while you will not see an achievable white version of the corvid castigator set in the game for example, you may see its shoulder piece used in another set, or its leggings, or wrist piece used in another set (not every piece as to form the whole set, but perhaps a couple pieces). This would be difficult to notice at first glance, due to the material, texture and color variation used, but this modular approach to content creation makes achieving a wide variety of looks achievable for an MMORPG of our size.

With that being said however, the intent behind my approach to these cosmetics, as well as the cosmetics that will be achievable in the game, is to provide a richer experience of visual diversity than we are typically accustomed to in the MMORPGs we have played in the past. There will be legendary cosmetics that are ONLY achievable in game and players can know wont be offered in some cosmetic shop in the future undermining their accomplishment. As well as for the more casual players time exclusive purchasable cosmetics from the marketplace, that players who purchase these can rest assured they won't be available again in some sale by the company in the future.

It's important to remember, Ashes is a NO-BOX COST subscription only game, with an optional cosmetic marketplace. This achieves a few things from a monetization model. Having a lower barrier to entry for players to try the game when they don't have to fork out $60 for the box price is good, our box price is 0$. This also places an emphasis on the game's retention and our continual updates and content creation to keep players playing and staying subscribed (a put your money where your mouth is sort of philosophy for us as a company). It also means players don't have to spend $60 everytime there is an expansion.

Is there an answer that satisfies everyone? Nope. And that's ok. We are open and transparent with our philosophies and business model. You know what you are getting with Ashes and to me, given my experiences in other games, it is a nice breath of fresh air.

This is a quote from Steven who for all intensive purposes is the creative director and behind many of the concepts of this game. I have bolded the important part:

He gives his reasoning which in a nutshell is low barrier to entry and taking money out of expansions. This is his choice. He also makes a point to say that this is his philosophy and that it won't be for everyone.

So you're not wrong for opening a discussion on this, but having a refute for every statement when really, you're brushing against Steven's own ideals isn't really helping your case when the majority are perfectly happy with the current model.

At one point you used the fact that if 100s of people disliked something then it might be reconsidered. I'd get that but in the forums I haven't seen that volume of post with people who have issues with a Non-P2W cash shop.

If you had in some cases been shown to be partial to other people's opinion the discussion might have been a bit healthier but it comes across as toxic (whether you intend to or not) if all you can do is disagree without being somewhat open minded.

Nerror

The cosmetics shop is probably the most common complaint against Ashes. And it certainly alienates a lot of the players for whom visual progression is highly important. This game simply might not attract that player base.

It's a common topic here, mostly by newer players coming in, and the threads tend to end up the same way. A LOT of people here don't see an issue with it, and some clearly can't even comprehend the perspective of a player that values visual progression so much that they have a real problem with it.

I think a lot of the dismissive or less-than-friendly posts in this and other similar threads are the result of the frequency of the topic and people unable to understand the importance of it for others. They think it's a silly thing to worry about, and they might have a hard time empathizing, so the tone gets rougher.

Atama

Iridianny wrote: »

You are all being so narrow minded about this and you are wasting your time trying to change my mind.

I don’t think there’s any chance of that.

It’s clear you want to play a game that isn’t this one. I don’t think we’re the ones wasting our time.

You’ve said absolutely nothing new or useful here. Your posts are “I want”. You’re never going to get what you want.

It’s not being narrow-minded up tell you how things are. Facts don’t care about your feelings.

Iridianny

Atama wrote: »

t’s clear you want to play a game that isn’t this one.

Eh, I will wait until it's released to make that judgement. Especially before I'd invest thousands into a fully funded game based on "promises."

Asgerr

Iridianny wrote: »

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

From a combat perspective it doesn't affect the gameplay experience though.

I don't see Steven changing a fundamental part of the game's revenue stream ... due to "gameplay experience" as it relates only to cosmetic appearance.

I don't think that is the point of this mmo is to be the best at combat skill, I am fairly sure there are many ways to progress, like just owning a tavern.

The core of this game is PvP and group content. So yes, there are other options to play the game as a crafter etc, but it will all ultimately depend on combat. So long as combat isn't affecting by cosmetics, neither will anything else.

Atama

Iridianny wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

t’s clear you want to play a game that isn’t this one.

Eh, I will wait until it's released to make that judgement. Especially before I'd invest thousands into a fully funded game based on "promises."

That is a very rational approach and I advise people all the time that they should do that.

You really don’t know what the game will be like before it’s released. We know what we’re supposed to have, and we know what they’ve done so far, but nothing is a 100% guarantee. Any investment now is a risk. Waiting is completely sensible.

Geronimo

@Iridianny The cosmetic shop exists to support the development process. Period.

I see people trying to shut it down the same way I see people that are trying to slow down the development of the game. I start to suspect you work for Amazon or something.

That is a possible explanation for the hate you are getting.

Iridianny

Geronimo wrote: »

@Iridianny The cosmetic shop exists to support the development process. Period.

I see people trying to shut it down the same way I see people that are trying to slow down the development of the game. I start to suspect you work for Amazon or something.

That is a possible explanation for the hate you are getting.

Is a cash shop during the development period as a form of reward for investment fine? Yes. I am talking about it for the future of the game after it's released. Also, the game was fully funded.

Asgerr

Iridianny wrote: »

Also, the game was fully funded.

Fully funded to allow the game to be released.

Do you expect everything beyond that point to be just Steven forking out truckloads of money to fund the game forever?

There has to be a revenue stream. Adding and upping the box cost will limit the amount of players you get. If you further up the sub cost, you also won't retain them.

Then then game is dead. But congratulations, you didn't get a cash shop. You can stand proud next to the servers once they shut them down.

Child Item