Atama wrote: » If we accept this as truth, then there will still be no pay to win if you can trade game money for Embers.
Nerror wrote: » Uncommon Sense wrote: » To clarify this is not a 2 way exchange. $--->Embers (cosmetics)<---game currency. Unlike GW2 $--->Gems<--->gold. @Okeydoke and @Anarchy23 notice the arrows. ---> and <--- First line with arrows have Embers/cosmetics in the middle, with arrows pointing towards the middle from both gold and RL money. Meaning, cosmetics can be bought with either. That's the suggestion. Second is the Guild Wars 2 way. Notice the double arrow <---> between gems and gold. They can be traded back and forth, meaning people can buy gems with RL money and sell for ingame gold. No such system is possible in AOC, nor is it suggested.
Uncommon Sense wrote: » To clarify this is not a 2 way exchange. $--->Embers (cosmetics)<---game currency. Unlike GW2 $--->Gems<--->gold.
Nerror wrote: » The OP is asking to spend ingame gold to buy cash shop cosmetics.
Noaani wrote: » Nerror wrote: » The OP is asking to spend ingame gold to buy cash shop cosmetics. This is a preposition put forward, yes. The thing that has not been addressed is why. Why would Intrepid cut in to their revenue stream in order to give players a means to earn cosmetics in game (because that is all this is), when players already have a means of earning cosmetics in game? I could absolutely see this argument - and would even support it - if Intrepid said all cosmetics were cash shop only. However, since they have said there will be equitable cosmetics earned in game, I simply fail to see the point for Intrepid to add this and cut in to that revenue stream. Keep in mind, even people that would pay for cosmetics would use the in game method, so it absolutely would have a major impact on the revenue Intrepid make on the cash shop. And once again, it is having that major impact on that revenue stream so that players can get functionality (means of earning cosmetics in game) that they already have.
Noaani wrote: » Atama wrote: » If we accept this as truth, then there will still be no pay to win if you can trade game money for Embers. You seem to be forgetting that gold is progression in Ashes. The person that ends up with the cosmetic is not the one that paid to win. The person that ended up with the gold did. They paid money to Intrepid for embers, then traded those embers with another player for progresion (gold). Thus, pay to win.
Anarchy23 wrote: » It would be a nice small reward.
Noaani wrote: » Anarchy23 wrote: » It would be a nice small reward. Stop right there. Your reward for paying your subscription fee is getting access to the game. You do not need any further reward than that, and if you feel you do, then Intrepid need to spend more effort on that game. Of all reasons to add a means of earning embers to the game that could exist, the desire to see them as a daily log in "reward" is the most pathetic, made up bullshit possible. What is really happening is people want things without paying for them, and so are trying to justify it using mechanics that dying games implement as a cheap and dirty means to manipulate people in to continuing to play their game.
Anarchy23 wrote: » I'm not trying to manipulate anyone.
Noaani wrote: » Anarchy23 wrote: » I'm not trying to manipulate anyone. I didn't say you were, I said that daily log in rewards are a manipulation tactic. Regardless of how it is implemented, it will cut in to the store revenue for Intrepid, and no one has given a good reason as to why this should happen. Without that reason, this literally is just people wanting handouts.
Anarchy23 wrote: » Atama wrote: » It's just the same old argument made by people for years about the cash shop being pay to win, just taken from another angle. But it's the same old, tired argument, and it's just as wrong. items in the cash shop are optional and give no real benefit; they are only cosmetics. Anything you can get in the shop, you can get an equivalent or better in the game. If we accept this as truth, then there will still be no pay to win if you can trade game money for Embers. Because it is 100% the player's decision that the leather hat with a purple feather being sold in the cash shop is something they desperately need. They can just get another hat (probably with a fancier feather) by earning it in-game instead. If they decide they want to get that hat, and don't want to spend real money for it, then they can feel free to sacrifice their gold for it. I don't see how you don't see this as pay to win. If you could buy a epic sword off the shop that gives you a advantage over someone else that has to earn that same sword with in game time/effort, that is automatically pay to win. I hope we can both agree on that, which will not be a option in AoC of course. Now say instead of that sword its a hat with feathers. I spend $200 on 200 embers which is enough to buy that cosmetic item. I trade those 200 embers for 200 gold. Now I spend that 200 gold on that epic sword. Its the same result, just with a few more steps. Your paying real money for shop currency(embers), trading it for in game currency(gold) and using that currency to buy in game items. Which would 100% be pay to win. We don't have pay to win as long as we can't trade the embers or cosmetics. If that isn't pay to win idk what is.
Atama wrote: » It's just the same old argument made by people for years about the cash shop being pay to win, just taken from another angle. But it's the same old, tired argument, and it's just as wrong. items in the cash shop are optional and give no real benefit; they are only cosmetics. Anything you can get in the shop, you can get an equivalent or better in the game. If we accept this as truth, then there will still be no pay to win if you can trade game money for Embers. Because it is 100% the player's decision that the leather hat with a purple feather being sold in the cash shop is something they desperately need. They can just get another hat (probably with a fancier feather) by earning it in-game instead. If they decide they want to get that hat, and don't want to spend real money for it, then they can feel free to sacrifice their gold for it.
Noaani wrote: » It will not. It is the very definition of pay to win if this is made possible. People with more time and less coin in Ashes can just spend that time working on an in game cosmetic, rendering this whole thing pointless.
Uncommon Sense wrote: » I would like the feature. I think it would bury the issues with the cash shop cosmetics as it stands. People/players who have more time to play and less real world funds can work* their way to a cosmetic purchase via an in game currency sink...More active players on the server, more incentive to stay subscribed, bigger population motive. consumers with bursting wallets can still buy the (embers) with $ and purchase cosmetics too... win win. To clarify this is not a 2 way exchange. $--->Embers (cosmetics)<---game currency. Unlike GW2 $--->Gems<--->gold. So you cannot P2W buy gold. Just to be clear. Obviously this is Hypothetical. Embers are not an entity as of yet merely eluded too. But any Topics regarding them seem to be ignored or overlooked. So I'm bumping up Embers into a possible discussion again.
pyreal wrote: » Anarchy23 wrote: » Atama wrote: » It's just the same old argument made by people for years about the cash shop being pay to win, just taken from another angle. But it's the same old, tired argument, and it's just as wrong. items in the cash shop are optional and give no real benefit; they are only cosmetics. Anything you can get in the shop, you can get an equivalent or better in the game. If we accept this as truth, then there will still be no pay to win if you can trade game money for Embers. Because it is 100% the player's decision that the leather hat with a purple feather being sold in the cash shop is something they desperately need. They can just get another hat (probably with a fancier feather) by earning it in-game instead. If they decide they want to get that hat, and don't want to spend real money for it, then they can feel free to sacrifice their gold for it. I don't see how you don't see this as pay to win. If you could buy a epic sword off the shop that gives you a advantage over someone else that has to earn that same sword with in game time/effort, that is automatically pay to win. I hope we can both agree on that, which will not be a option in AoC of course. Now say instead of that sword its a hat with feathers. I spend $200 on 200 embers which is enough to buy that cosmetic item. I trade those 200 embers for 200 gold. Now I spend that 200 gold on that epic sword. Its the same result, just with a few more steps. Your paying real money for shop currency(embers), trading it for in game currency(gold) and using that currency to buy in game items. Which would 100% be pay to win. We don't have pay to win as long as we can't trade the embers or cosmetics. If that isn't pay to win idk what is. You probably can't see it because you don't understand what the cosmetic shop is. "buy an epic sword off the shop" -- WHAT are you talking about? The Cosmetic Shop has Cosmetics, not weapons nor gear nor potions nor boosters. Further, cosmetics can't be traded, nor can embers. Your whole post is filled with untruths. Also the purchased cosmetics will not be on par with in-game cosmetics, they are BENEATH in-game cosmetics.
Anarchy23 wrote: » pyreal wrote: » Anarchy23 wrote: » Atama wrote: » It's just the same old argument made by people for years about the cash shop being pay to win, just taken from another angle. But it's the same old, tired argument, and it's just as wrong. items in the cash shop are optional and give no real benefit; they are only cosmetics. Anything you can get in the shop, you can get an equivalent or better in the game. If we accept this as truth, then there will still be no pay to win if you can trade game money for Embers. Because it is 100% the player's decision that the leather hat with a purple feather being sold in the cash shop is something they desperately need. They can just get another hat (probably with a fancier feather) by earning it in-game instead. If they decide they want to get that hat, and don't want to spend real money for it, then they can feel free to sacrifice their gold for it. I don't see how you don't see this as pay to win. If you could buy a epic sword off the shop that gives you a advantage over someone else that has to earn that same sword with in game time/effort, that is automatically pay to win. I hope we can both agree on that, which will not be a option in AoC of course. Now say instead of that sword its a hat with feathers. I spend $200 on 200 embers which is enough to buy that cosmetic item. I trade those 200 embers for 200 gold. Now I spend that 200 gold on that epic sword. Its the same result, just with a few more steps. Your paying real money for shop currency(embers), trading it for in game currency(gold) and using that currency to buy in game items. Which would 100% be pay to win. We don't have pay to win as long as we can't trade the embers or cosmetics. If that isn't pay to win idk what is. You probably can't see it because you don't understand what the cosmetic shop is. "buy an epic sword off the shop" -- WHAT are you talking about? The Cosmetic Shop has Cosmetics, not weapons nor gear nor potions nor boosters. Further, cosmetics can't be traded, nor can embers. Your whole post is filled with untruths. Also the purchased cosmetics will not be on par with in-game cosmetics, they are BENEATH in-game cosmetics. Man you must not have even read my comment. I was just stating a example of what definitive Pay to win is. It was obvious, I even said which will NOT be a option in AoC OF COURSE. Yes I agree the cosmetic shop only has cosmetics, but IF its possible to trade them that can translate into pay to win IF you could trade the cosmetics. Again I never said it will be in the game and I can pretty much guarantee will NOT be possible. Purchased cosmetics WILL be on par with in game cosmetics. They aren't going to sell cosmetics beneath in game cosmetics. That would be stupid. In most games the in shop cosmetics are even better then the in game cosmetics. In ashes they will be equal quality, but different.
Okeydoke wrote: » Ok I think I was caught up in the way Taleof2cities boiled it down, which is p2w. But that is not what the OP is arguing for I assume now. OP would just like the option to buy cosmetics with in game gold, and that in game gold goes to Intrepid, not another player.
Jahlon wrote: » So I understand people want to be able to earn cash-shop cosmetics with in-game gold, but Intrepid can't keep the lights on, the payroll flowing, the servers going, and everything else they need to do with in-game gold. If that was the case they could just generate as much as they wanted. Part of the value of a cash shop cosmetic is that you paid "real world cash" for it. Given that Intrepid is dedicated to making sure there are a lot of in-game obtainable cosmetics, the people who can't afford more than the $15 sub will have more than enough time-sinks to keep them occupied. As far as the cash-shop cosmetics, those are there to give Intrepid the revenue they need to keep the game going.
