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

Noaani

Iridianny wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

The cash shop can not be changed without affecting the game or the company. If you get rid of it, Intrepid need to either increase the subscription - which will see many players opt out of the game - or add a box cost - which will see many players opt out of the game.

You are looking at things only from your perspective, not taking other perspectives in to account at all - and then claiming the rest of us are doing just that.

I see. You are reliant that the sub price will not change because there is a cash shop. That's not necessarily fact and many video game companies have changes their monetization after the game is released. It's okay to rework something while the game is in development if it might be a better option. People can change their minds without "trust being lost."

Many games do indeed change their monetization after a game is released - because the game would fail if they didn't.

The idea is to get the monetization right at the start, so that this change isn't needed.

I would fully support you being upset with a cosmetic only cash shop if it were added to the game after launch, with no prior mention of it. I left a game I played and loved for a long time due to it adding a cash shop (with minor pay to win aspects).

However, the cash shop is here from the start, so there is no room to be upset about it. You either accept it, or you don't.

Iridianny

Azherae wrote: »

Now you're getting into a different type of 'disrespectful' territory.

They told us their plans. In detail. And told us that they will be transparent about whatever they can. Other people explain those plans to you.

You would have an argument if you were saying 'no, you misunderstood what they said'. But you're not. You're saying 'things could change' and now you're saying 'do you think they told you everything' (with the implication that somehow this would allow things to change).

If you can't at least respect Intrepid's promise and claim, why even bother engaging on the subject?

I know they have made promises, it's clear everyone knows them here. But, yes, to think they tell the player base "everything" is foolish. It's okay to rework something... like a cash shop... while the game is in development if it might be a better option. People can change their minds in a creative process without breaking promises.

Noaani

Iridianny wrote: »

It's okay to rework something... like a cash shop... while the game is in development if it might be a better option.

Even if we assume that it would be acceptable for them to do this, no one has presented them with a better option.

Iridianny

Noaani wrote: »

However, the cash shop is here from the start, so there is no room to be upset about it. You either accept it, or you don't.

Why? Why can't it be brought up like every other issue? There's no harm in sharing a counter perspective and some rp grievances with this way of monetization before the game is even released. Now is the time to change things hence why they have discussion boards!

Geronimo

@Iridianny OK I read them.

It seems that you are advocating punishing a large portion of the player base with a higher subscription fee.

Many people, as evidenced by this thread, don't care about the cosmetic shop one way or the other.

All of these people will have to pay more money to remove it.

There are alternatives to increasing the sub fee for everyone, e.g. having a cosmetic like they already have.

You said yourself: "1/4 of the player base that is wanting to play this part of the game".

So the other 75% that do not want to play that part have to pay extra for you to do that? That's just not fair.

Azherae

Iridianny wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

However, the cash shop is here from the start, so there is no room to be upset about it. You either accept it, or you don't.

Why? Why can't it be brought up like every other issue? There's no harm in sharing a counter perspective and some rp grievances with this way of monetization before the game is even released. Now is the time to change things hence why they have discussion boards!

Because what you're doing isn't actually airing RP Grievances, it just looks a lot like it because you're separating what is actually happening from what you are concerned about happening.

You're talking about a situation in which someone puts in the effort to make a Baker costume, this costume is important to someone else (i.e. it is a part of the game that they expect or want enough to have it influence their enjoyment of the game), but it is only available via cash shop.

The difference is that you see 'I think it's unfair that someone can buy a costume that someone else can't get'. and I at least see 'there was no good economic reason to make a baker costume unless there were going to be enough people wanting to wear it and having no alternatives'.

If a visual indicator is needed or enhances the RP experience of many players, I don't expect it to be in the cash shop. I haven't seen much like it in the Shop so far. Maybe once or twice.

So to me you're just saying "I expect there to be cosmetics that are relevant to RP for a nontrivial number of people and Intrepid is going to try to force those people to buy the cosmetics".

That's the most charitable interpretation of your argument I can see from where I am.

Enlighten me.

Noaani

Iridianny wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

However, the cash shop is here from the start, so there is no room to be upset about it. You either accept it, or you don't.

Why? Why can't it be brought up like every other issue? There's no harm in sharing a counter perspective and some rp grievances with this way of monetization before the game is even released. Now is the time to change things hence why they have discussion boards!

As I said earlier, you can discuss it all you want. Just don't expect any change.

Especially don't expect any change when you have not presented a better solution.

If you had a solution that none of us could find fault with (you won't), then sure, you have a reason to want change to happen. Until you understand Intrepid's reason for the cash shop and come up with a solution that meets those reasons though, you have no reason to be upset.

Again, you either accept the cash shop as it is, for the reasons Intrepid have it, or you do not accept it and you play something else.

Iridianny

Noaani wrote: »

Even if we assume that it would be acceptable for them to do this, no one has presented them with a better option.

A free trial gets people into the game. It's worked forever. A slight raise in monthly subs is not crazy when it's been $15 for mmo's since 2004. Runescape was $5 and now is $11. I think an mmo of this quality could double in price from what it was for the best mmo in the early 2000's. Also, $60 box price is standard since the 90's. People freak out when these prices change, so they'd rather add microtransactions instead of just making to cost upfront realistic and fairly compensated.

Geronimo

Iridianny wrote: »

A free trial gets people into the game. It's worked forever. A slight raise in monthly subs is not crazy when it's been $15 for mmo's since 2004. Runescape was $5 and now is $11. I think an mmo of this quality could double in price from what it was for the best mmo in the early 2000's. Also, $60 box price is standard since the 90's. People freak out when these prices change, so they'd rather add microtransactions instead of just making to cost upfront realistic and fairly compensated.

It makes perfect sense to me, the 75% of the population that do not want to play the cosmetic game get to pay the normal price. The 25% (according to your post above) that want to play the cosmetic can pay extra to play it.

Otherwise we punish the majority with higher sub fees, just so the minority can play a game the majority don't care about at all.

Karthos

Guys, you don't understand.

If only the game was made how he wanted, it would be fine, but since it's made how other people wanted, it needs to be fixed so it's what he wanted.

I don't understand how you people aren't getting this!!!!!!

Iridianny

Azherae wrote: »

So to me you're just saying "I expect there to be cosmetics that are relevant to RP for a nontrivial number of people and Intrepid is going to try to force those people to buy the cosmetics".

That's the most charitable interpretation of your argument I can see from where I am.

Enlighten me.

All cosmetics are relevant to RP. This game is an RPG. Why do they think it will be enough for revenue if a cash shop doesn't affect but a nontrivial number of people?

Dygz

Most likely changes to monetization for Ashes would also happen - if they happened - after release, but...
"Anything can change during development" is actually just hyperbole.
It's also "possible" that the devs will give us separate PvE servers, but...it's highly unlikely.

CROW3

Karthos wrote: »

I don't understand how you people aren't getting this!!!!!!

I clearly need to hand my degree back in. *shuffles away*

Iridianny

Karthos wrote: »

Guys, you don't understand.

If only the game was made how he wanted, it would be fine, but since it's made how other people wanted, it needs to be fixed so it's what he wanted.

I don't understand how you people aren't getting this!!!!!!

Well for one thing I am a female. Secondly, it seems like this has been debated before and yes there are multiple sides to a debate. If it wasn't a relevant topic about the game, you wouldn't be commenting.

Geronimo

Iridianny wrote: »

All cosmetics are relevant to RP. This game is an RPG. Why do they think it will be enough for revenue if a cash shop doesn't affect but a nontrivial number of people?

I'll say it again, the cosmetic shop is not only for RPers.

Karthos

CROW3 wrote: »

Karthos wrote: »

I don't understand how you people aren't getting this!!!!!!

I clearly need to hand my degree back in. *shuffles away*

You can give it to me, I'm equally not using any of mine.

CROW3

Iridianny wrote: »

If it wasn't a relevant topic about the game, you wouldn't be commenting.

That's an interesting assumption.

Noaani

Iridianny wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Even if we assume that it would be acceptable for them to do this, no one has presented them with a better option.

A free trial gets people into the game. It's worked forever. A slight raise in monthly subs is not crazy when it's been $15 for mmo's since 2004. Runescape was $5 and now is $11. I think an mmo of this quality could double in price from what it was for the best mmo in the early 2000's. Also, $60 box price is standard since the 90's. People freak out when these prices change, so they'd rather add microtransactions instead of just making to cost upfront realistic and fairly compensated.

A free trial is a viable way to get people in to a game several years after it has launched. I expect to see one 18 - 24 months after Ashes launches.

$15 a month is standard for MMO's. This is what Intrepid - a company with no track record - needs to charge in order to get people to look at the game. At least for the first year, this figure simply can not be altered.

A $60 box price is what Intrepid are trying to avoid. This is a barrier to entry for many people that could happily pay $15 a month. Even if a free trial existed, this $60 box cost would be a barrier for many people.

However, that $15 a month subscription fee doesn't cover the cost of both maintaining/running the game, as well as developing new content. So, a second revenue stream is needed. Since Intrepid have determined that adding a box cost will keep players away from the game, and that $15 is the most they want to charge for a subscription (at least to start) a cash shop is the only option left available to them.

So, what Intrepid need to do in order to not have a cash shop is come up with a revenue stream that isn't a box cost at all, and doesn't involve increasing the subscription fee, yet has the potential to make decent profit.

Iridianny

CROW3 wrote: »

Iridianny wrote: »

If it wasn't a relevant topic about the game, you wouldn't be commenting.

That's an interesting assumption.

I guess so if you have nothing better to do with your degree than comment on video game forums that are irrelevant to you.

Iridianny

Noaani wrote: »

Iridianny wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Even if we assume that it would be acceptable for them to do this, no one has presented them with a better option.

A free trial gets people into the game. It's worked forever. A slight raise in monthly subs is not crazy when it's been $15 for mmo's since 2004. Runescape was $5 and now is $11. I think an mmo of this quality could double in price from what it was for the best mmo in the early 2000's. Also, $60 box price is standard since the 90's. People freak out when these prices change, so they'd rather add microtransactions instead of just making to cost upfront realistic and fairly compensated.

A free trial is a viable way to get people in to a game several years after it has launched. I expect to see one 18 - 24 months after Ashes launches.

$15 a month is standard for MMO's. This is what Intrepid - a company with no track record - needs to charge in order to get people to look at the game. At least for the first year, this figure simply can not be altered.

A $60 box price is what Intrepid are trying to avoid. This is a barrier to entry for many people that could happily pay $15 a month. Even if a free trial existed, this $60 box cost would be a barrier for many people.

However, that $15 a month subscription fee doesn't cover the cost of both maintaining/running the game, as well as developing new content. So, a second revenue stream is needed. Since Intrepid have determined that adding a box cost will keep players away from the game, and that $15 is the most they want to charge for a subscription (at least to start) a cash shop is the only option left available to them.

So, what Intrepid need to do in order to not have a cash shop is come up with a revenue stream that isn't a box cost at all, and doesn't involve increasing the subscription fee, yet has the potential to make decent profit.

The free trial is at the beginning to get many people hooked so that the box cost can come after for a "full download". Then, you can charge per month after that.
Or, they could just charge more than $15, say $19.99 and people wouldn't freak out over a $4 difference like is being assumed.
Would I rather not have a box cost? Sure. Would I like it be stay at $15? That'd be nice. But I also am happy to fairly pay for a video game that is really engaging with a one time fee and no cash shops influencing gameplay. However, obviously I am a minority in this group of people on my thread. That doesn't discourage me though.

Child Item