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

Iridianny

Asgerr wrote: »

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.

You'd rather the game you enjoy be funded by the part of the player base who enjoys rp, than for you to pay a reasonable amount to compensate the work of creating an expansion of a game you'd have hundreds of hours playing by that point. There can be a higher sub fee and if the game is good enough people will pay it.

Asgerr

Iridianny wrote: »

Asgerr wrote: »

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.

You'd rather the game you enjoy be funded by the part of the player base who enjoys rp, than for you to pay a reasonable amount to compensate the work of creating an expansion of a game you'd have hundreds of hours playing by that point. There can be a higher sub fee and if the game is good enough people will pay it.

Already replied to this exact same statement on the other thread.

Geronimo

Iridianny wrote: »

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.

Support is even more relevant after the game is released, it doesn't stay "fully funded" indefinitely.

I would much rather pay my own hard-earned money towards the art direction that I personally like than to an increase in sub-cost, at least there is some basis to it. That's my opinion, but I believe I AM fully entitled to that opinion because it is my money after all.

In the "more to the subscription cost" scenario you are proposing, then the devs that make the art that I personally DISLIKE in the game would be equally funded and no one could tell the difference. It's much better to be able to support what you like.

And I do not do RP by the way, I just like to pay for things I like, not things I do not like.

Noaani

Iridianny wrote: »

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.

That point obviously went WAY over your head.

Me saying that the game starts at the level cap is an issue with me, not an issue with the game or the games design.

It is my problem that I need to come to terms with on my own.

This is the same as your issue with the cash shop. It is your issue that you need to come to terms with on your own.

Karthos

Steven has said that Ashes won't be a game for everyone.

This isn't some cheap cop-out to explain away why something isn't ideal, it's just a fact that he's designing the game how he wants, and he's not going to try and please everyone.

Sometimes, you need to just accept you aren't one of those people he's going to please because your core philosophy doesn't align with the direction the game has chosen to go.

Arguing over which way is better isn't going to change the fact that the design of this game is going to go a direction, and that direction is NOT going to please 100% of people who want to play this game. It sucks to find out you are on the side not included in that, but if every game tried to please EVERYONE, then you more often than not please no one, because you get half-measures, and compromises that defeat the point of even having that content to begin with.

E_THE_REAL1

tautau wrote: »

Every time there is an 'anti-buy cosmetics' thread, I go to the store and buy some cosmetics.

I’m going to start doing this too now

Iridianny

E_THE_REAL1 wrote: »

Sure, but maybe they should replace pay for cosmetics for pay to win is what I am saying. It would make them a lot more money if having multiple revenue streams is important and it doesn't ostracize players that enjoy cosmetics and social gameplay.

Stick to Skyrim buddy

It was a hypothetical stance to show that when it comes to affecting *your* type of gameplay it’s not okay now. Which you’ve proven here with your comment. I am against cash shops in all forms, it was to try to produce some sympathy and perspective for the players affected by cosmetic shops. Which seems impossible at this point. You’d rather isolate player types from a game that needs many players after release to be successful than to see a potential flaw in the current monetization model. I don’t play Skyrim, but thanks for the suggestion.

E_THE_REAL1

If you’re advocating pay to win, just go play Skyrim, MMO’s are not for you.

Iridianny

E_THE_REAL1 wrote: »

If you’re advocating pay to win, just go play Skyrim, MMO’s are not for you.

I’m not and if you could read what I’ve said before responding, you’d understand that.
I quite enjoy MMOs but thanks for the suggestion.

Dygz

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

Iridianny wrote: »

Boanergese wrote: »

Steven has said a billion times there is no pay to win.

Sure, but maybe they should replace pay for cosmetics for pay to win is what I am saying. It would make them a lot more money if having multiple revenue streams is important and it doesn't ostracize players that enjoy cosmetics and social gameplay.

If you're weighing pay for cosmetics versus pay to win ... pay for cosmetics is the lesser evil by a country mile.

It's not even close.

For me, pay for cosmetics isn't much different than pay to win.
I don't really get Steven's high horse about no pay to win when he has pay for cosmetics.
But, neither are a deal-breaker for me, so, I don't really care at the end of the day

Iridianny

Dygz wrote: »

For me, pay for cosmetics isn't much different than pay to win.
I don't really get Steven's high horse about no pay to win when he has pay for cosmetics.
But, neither are a deal-breaker for me, so, I don't really care at the end of the day

Indeed. Attempting to shed a light on the hypocritical monetization and offer a counter perspective doesn’t go very far to people who seem to worship this Steven fellow and all his decisions. Discouraged was the word I used in my original post. Not a deal breaker for me to try a month of this game that has promising features, we will see how far they take the cash shop though. I think It’d be better to design the monetization after release without it for the longevity of the game and happiness of the player base is all. But I don’t claim to know the best way to do things, just that there are many ways to do everything.

Geronimo

Dygz wrote: »

I don't really get Steven's high horse about no pay to win when he has pay for cosmetics.

I fully understand his high horse about this, and I agree with it wholeheartedly.

Karthos

If you see looking pretty as "winning" then I guess you could see it that way. There's of course intangible elements, such as FOMO, but this is highly subjective.

I don't really see any tangible advantage to cosmetics, unless they hide you better from enemies or grant you stats, MAYBE allowing you to cut in line and skip content in the game, which none of the ones we've seen so far would indicate.

Given we've been promised comparative in game equivalents (or better, which Steven has stated) of the paid for cosmetics, on a scale showing in-game advantages over others, based on 1-10, 10 being "Ultra Pay To Win, this system hits at around a 1.5.

Given personal preference, I'm wiling to concede a 2 point margin or error, so 0-3/10, which any way you look at it, is far better than the alternative.

Atama

Iridianny wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

For me, pay for cosmetics isn't much different than pay to win.
I don't really get Steven's high horse about no pay to win when he has pay for cosmetics.
But, neither are a deal-breaker for me, so, I don't really care at the end of the day

Indeed. Attempting to shed a light on the hypocritical monetization and offer a counter perspective doesn’t go very far to people who seem to worship this Steven fellow and all his decisions. Discouraged was the word I used in my original post. Not a deal breaker for me to try a month of this game that has promising features, we will see how far they take the cash shop though. I think It’d be better to design the monetization after release without it for the longevity of the game and happiness of the player base is all. But I don’t claim to know the best way to do things, just that there are many ways to do everything.

When you resort to insulting people who disagree with you, clearly you are bankrupt of ideas and rational arguments. Frankly you're just trolling now.

I've participated in the various iterations of this message board for years (I think this is the 3rd board now) and someone like you always pops up, makes a lot of noise about this issue, then goes away forever. I'm just waiting for this to fizzle out like it always does.

Iridianny

Karthos wrote: »

If you see looking pretty as "winning" then I guess you could see it that way. There's of course intangible elements, such as FOMO, but this is highly subjective.

I don't really see any tangible advantage to cosmetics, unless they hide you better from enemies or grant you stats, MAYBE allowing you to cut in line and skip content in the game, which none of the ones we've seen so far would indicate.

You clearly do not understand the perspective of someone who enjoys outfitting and rp in an mmo and that's okay. You are roleplaying as your character being able to fight dragons in a fantasy world. Some people play in a different way though. AoC said there are many types of progression besides combat. That was a core principle. You can be a mount breeder, a tavern owner, a baker, etc... They were trying to appeal to people who enjoy social aspects of mmo's with their principles of making many paths of progression and not the typical xp to level 100 and done.

I've said in earlier posts my stance on monetizing part of what makes an rpg fun for people who like to rp in different ways. I will bring back the example for you:

Hypothetically, I should be able to be a (for example) baker as my gameplay when I pay my monthly sub. Now, it the "baker" costume costs $20 on the cash shop, my entire gameplay has a barrier to entry that no one else had. It's not about the one costume, though, this could be hypothetically said about any cosmetic that they charge extra for.
By this logic, I prefer a box price. I'd rather pay $60 once than $20 multiple times to get the furniture for the shop, the different costumes, etc, etc, etc. If you are the 1/4 of the player base that is wanting to play this part of the game, it now has the burden of being monetized.

I know many people have issues with box price, but I think that a free trial can aid with this. I don't think a box price is an unfair compensation for expansions 2 years down the line. In fact, I think that's reasonable! Perhaps the cosmetics + the donations so far and then the monthly fee is enough to cover not having a box price for the release game and not "needing" a cosmetic cash shop? I'd say most likely. $15/month x let's say a very low figure of 100k players for the release... that's $1.5 mil in one month. The game has been fully funded already. I am not claiming to understand their budget system by any means. Simply that a cash shop seems like a slippery slope into future pay to win when people start to get bored with content and an unnecessary cash grab on role players at the start.

Noaani

Iridianny wrote: »

They were trying to appeal to people who enjoy social aspects of mmo's with their principles of making many paths of progression and not the typical xp to level 100 and done.

Being a mount breeder, a tavern owner or a baker is not about a costume.

Based on what Intrepid have said, you should be able to be a baker as a core part of your gameplay. This means making and selling baked goods, not wearing a costume. The costume isn't a part of it at all - the gameplay is what is being talked about. They aren't saying you should be able to find a bakers costume and RP as a baker, they are saying you should be able to play the game and progress as a baker.

If you really care about outfitting your characters, about getting the look just how you want it, then the whole cosmetic store thing really shouldn't bother you at all. If you are that concerned with it all, you will use in game cosmetics that you can mix and match. You can essentially ignore the store and it's cosmetics as being for people that are less concerned with how they look than you are.

As to the cash shop being the start of a slippery slope - no it isn't.

The cash shop was stated to be a part of the game from day 1. It is mentioned on the kickstarter page iirc.

As such, the cosmetic only cash shop is the level ground before the slope, as it is a foundational aspect of the game. The start of a slippery slope requires a change from the status quo - and the status quo in Ashes is a cosmetic only cash shop.

Iridianny

Atama wrote: »

When you resort to insulting people who disagree with you, clearly you are bankrupt of ideas and rational arguments. Frankly you're just trolling now.

I've participated in the various iterations of this message board for years (I think this is the 3rd board now) and someone like you always pops up, makes a lot of noise about this issue, then goes away forever. I'm just waiting for this to fizzle out like it always does.

What did I say that was insulting? Many people have been citing and clinging to "Steven's words" since this post started as if it was their own thoughts. I was not asking for his words, he's quite biased as the creator of the game and I can find them myself with a quick search. I am sharing an opinion of monetization and mmo's in general. That's nice that you have offered no beneficial conversation to an idea that has continuously been brought up, and clearly dismissed, in hopes that it will "fizzle out." There are things to be learned from different perspectives. Have a nice day.

Dygz

Karthos wrote: »

If you see looking pretty as "winning" then I guess you could see it that way. There's of course intangible elements, such as FOMO, but this is highly subjective.

I don't really see any tangible advantage to cosmetics, unless they hide you better from enemies or grant you stats, MAYBE allowing you to cut in line and skip content in the game, which none of the ones we've seen so far would indicate.

Given we've been promised comparative in game equivalents (or better, which Steven has stated) of the paid for cosmetics, on a scale showing in-game advantages over others, based on 1-10, 10 being "Ultra Pay To Win, this system hits at around a 1.5.

Given personal preference, I'm wiling to concede a 2 point margin or error, so 0-3/10, which any way you look at it, is far better than the alternative.

I don't consider myself to be competing with other players when I play MMORPGs...
So, for me, both Pay for Cosmetics and Pay to Win are really just Pay for Convenience.
If people want to Pay for Convenience, it's fine by me. Neither version is worse than the other.

"In-game equivalents of the cosmetics" don't really mean much to me.
My brother died the month the Stufferton was offered - I missed that opportunity while I was distracted prepping memorials in two different states. Can't get an in-game version of the Stufferton, as far as I know.
I'm sure I can get some other Bear mount in the game to represent being a carebear, but it's not going to be as epic as riding a Stufferton.
So, I would consider purchasing a Stufferton as winning because it's a perfect representation of the Dygz role. And losing out on the opportunity to obtain a Stufferton feels like a significant loss.

Noaani

Iridianny wrote: »

Many people have been citing and clinging to "Steven's words" since this post started as if it was their own thoughts.

You have been asking for change, people have been pointing you to what the person that is paying to get this game made has said on the matter.

Essentially, it doesn't matter what you or I think, this matter is settled.

If you want to talk about whether a cosmetic only cash shop is a good thing for MMO's in general, have at it. Just don't bother having that conversation in the context of Ashes, as in this game, the matter is settled.

Babayugah

Iridianny wrote: »

Boanergese wrote: »

Steven has said a billion times there is no pay to win.

Sure, but maybe they should replace pay for cosmetics for pay to win is what I am saying. .

No.

There's no other answer to be given and no explanation needed in response to your statement other than No.

Child Item