So will it be possible to earn/convert in game currency for (Embers) Cash shop currency?

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Atama

Uncommon Sense wrote: »

They could have made cash shop cosmetics direct $ purchases, but they didn't....so ask yourself Jahlon why is that?

But they have. I own a ton of cosmetics and paid straight cash for them. The plan is to not do that after release, and have Embers instead. The reason for that is easy... If you force people to buy Embers in particular quantities, then you will quite frequently buy an amount of Embers more than you actually need for a particular cosmetic. That means you will have extra Embers sitting around doing nothing. When a new cosmetic comes out that appeals to you, there's an extra incentive to get it. Here, let's use some hypothetical numbers again to show you how this works.

This is from the Wiki, I'm not sure if it's official or an estimate or fan-made or what, but since it's all hypothetical, let's just use this:

So say there is a mount skin you want. It looks like a winged bear. It costs 2,500 Embers.

You buy the $24.99 package which gives you 2,750 Embers. You buy the winged bear, awesome, you have 250 Embers left over.

Then a couple of months later there is a belt skin that costs 750 Embers. You really like it. You already have 250 Embers, so you rationalize, hey that thing really just costs 500 Embers to me, so you spend $9.99 and get 1,000 Embers and buy it. You have 500 left over.

Then the next month there is a pet that looks like a squirrel made of steel with glowing runes. It looks really cool. It costs 1,250 Embers. Since you have 500 Embers banked, you only have to spend another $9.99 to get it, and you feel like you got a good value on that. Oh, and you'll still have 250 Embers left over that can contribute to the next cosmetic that catches your eye...

Intrepid has $44.97 of your money, and you continue to feel compelled to buy more so that the Embers you have don't go to waste. There are many games that use this kind of premium currency system to get people to keep buying microtransactions. It's sales psychology.

Embers are thing and I am proposing 1 positive reason to have them. There is no negative reason why such a conversion wouldn't have a overall positive outcome.
If you think there would be a profit loss I would disagree...
I think there would be more subscriber incentive in a net profit increase. Which means a more stable funded development platform.

No, there is a very strong negative reason such a conversion would be a bad idea. Either Intrepid will make it cheap enough that it devalues the cash shop, or so expensive that people think it gouges them. They won't win with it. It's a bad idea.

I disagree strongly that there would be more subscriber incentive. I guarantee you that you will not get a single subscription from a single player based on the idea of being able to get cosmetics from the shop using in-game currency.

Like I originally said, such a 1 way conversion would end the cash shop/subscriber debate/issue.

What debate/issue?!

Talents

Uncommon Sense wrote: »

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.

They could have made cash shop cosmetics direct $ purchases, but they didn't....so ask yourself Jahlon why is that?

I mean, from a financial perspective, one of the reasons Embers might be a thing is so they can charge people more for cosmetics by making people buy 2 separate Ember packs like a lot of companies do.

For example, if a Costume is 3000 embers at launch and the closest pack to that amount is only worth 2800 embers then that means you'd need to buy both the 2800 pack and another ember pack to get to the 3000 ember mark to buy the costume.

It's seen as a "scummy" way to sell stuff, but tons of companies do it so I wouldn't be surprised to see Intrepid do it.

Noaani

@pyreal

pyreal wrote: »

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.

The cosmetics in the shop are purely cosmetic and do not affect characters' performance or progression.
Regardless of how you get a cosmetic, IT CAN'T HELP YOU WIN.

So your definition has been soured by the drugs you're taking.

You've not been paying attention.

The person that ended up with the cosmetic did not pay to win. They neither paid, nor won.

The person that bought embers with money, and then sold those embers to the other player in order to buy a cosmetic (or just traded the cosmetic) paid to win. They paid real money, and in return received in game gold. Since we were talking about the ability to exchange embers in the post you quoted, that is where the issue is.

Since gold in Ashes absolutely is progression (the game will likely have a near infinite gear progression path that is gold reliant), this absolutely is pay to win.

If you think it is not, then perhaps it is you that has been soured by the drugs you are taking. Or perhaps you were just mistaken.

Okeydoke

Uncommon Sense wrote: »

I'm sorry if you cannot comprehend the 1 way conversion or are to self centered to actually care about the longterm health of the game we all want to play.

Brother what are you squawking at me for? I'm around 7-800 dollars deep on this game, having bought my original 500 dollar Alpha 1 package, couple other random skins, and the 5 dollar skin every month since I bought Alpha 1.

This is the single weirdest thread I've ever been involved in lol. All I was doing was responding to people who were defending actual p2w, and one person, Atama, who because of the sequence of posts, appeared to me to be defending p2w, but was not. (Which was strange to me because I already knew Atama was anti p2w.)

As far as the idea in the OP's post, it's not a horrible idea, and we could see something similar to it in the game one day. Or not, just depends on the business conditions of the game going forward and Steven's decisions. But right now I just don't see them making RMT cosmetic skins obtainable with in game currency when the game will already have in game obtainable cosmetics.

Atama

Noaani wrote: »

@pyreal

pyreal wrote: »

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.

The cosmetics in the shop are purely cosmetic and do not affect characters' performance or progression.
Regardless of how you get a cosmetic, IT CAN'T HELP YOU WIN.

So your definition has been soured by the drugs you're taking.

You've not been paying attention.

The person that ended up with the cosmetic did not pay to win. They neither paid, nor won.

The person that bought embers with money, and then sold those embers to the other player in order to buy a cosmetic (or just traded the cosmetic) paid to win. They paid real money, and in return received in game gold. Since we were talking about the ability to exchange embers in the post you quoted, that is where the issue is.

@Noaani, as has been said to you repeatedly in this thread, you can’t trade Embers or cosmetic store items. The OP never advocated changing that. Are you posting drunk?!

EroValant

To clarify this is not a 2 way exchange. $--->Embers (cosmetics)<---game currency.[/quote]

I like this. though I want to bring to light that under no circumstances should Embers or cosmetic cash shop items be able to be gifted or traded between players. Your idea is good, if Intrepid weren't planning it already I expect they will see it's worth.

Noaani

Atama wrote: »

Noaani, as has been said to you repeatedly in this thread, you can’t trade Embers or cosmetic store items. The OP never advocated changing that. Are you posting drunk?!

Yes, I know, which is why I have been asking repeatedly for a reason as to why Intrepid should forgo income to make this happen.

However, even if I was incorrect about the OP's proposal (the combination of the OP and title of the tread are written horribly), I am not going to let people run with the misguided opinion that being able to buy and sell cosmetics for in game currency is not pay to win - which is what I was doing in the post you quoted.

So again - asking anyone at all that cares, why should Intrepid forgo the revenue they will lose if this is added to the game, and/or how will they make that revenue back?

I'm not the only person asking this question - yet no one is answering it.

Gizban

Noaani wrote: »

@pyreal

pyreal wrote: »

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.

The cosmetics in the shop are purely cosmetic and do not affect characters' performance or progression.
Regardless of how you get a cosmetic, IT CAN'T HELP YOU WIN.

So your definition has been soured by the drugs you're taking.

You've not been paying attention.

The person that ended up with the cosmetic did not pay to win. They neither paid, nor won.

The person that bought embers with money, and then sold those embers to the other player in order to buy a cosmetic (or just traded the cosmetic) paid to win. They paid real money, and in return received in game gold. Since we were talking about the ability to exchange embers in the post you quoted, that is where the issue is.

Since gold in Ashes absolutely is progression (the game will likely have a near infinite gear progression path that is gold reliant), this absolutely is pay to win.

If you think it is not, then perhaps it is you that has been soured by the drugs you are taking. Or perhaps you were just mistaken.

I understand your PoV and it seems to lean on these two fallacies:

1 - embers can be traded
2 - cosmetic shop items can be traded

However:
1 - Only three ways to obtain Embers, none of which are trading/buying from players
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Embers

2 - "All cosmetic store items will be non-tradeable.[7] There will be no gifting mechanism for cosmetic items.[8]"
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Cosmetic_store

Your argument doesn't withstand these facts, so it seems you haven't been paying attention. Or did I misunderstand your position?

Hugs and kisses

Uncommon Sense

Well a moderator gave me a warning and removed my last post with no specific reason other than a blanket
hate speech/toxicity copy and paste, which I don't believe I violated by the way.

I believe I've made my point clear. The net benefit of such an 1 way conversion has no detrimental effect.
the pros far outweigh the cons.

Nobody is stopping you from purchasing Embers with $ and all I'm suggesting is that maybe after 1000's of hours of in game play might be able to supplement or obtain an Ember cosmetic acquisition through a long-term dedicated subscription.

Noaani

Uncommon Sense wrote: »

I believe I've made my point clear. The net benefit of such an 1 way conversion has no detrimental effect.

@Uncommon Sense
Sorry, could you point me to where you addressed the fact that Intrepid would make less revenue from the cash shop?

This is the big downside, and I have seen no actual points made to answer it.

Many people like myself that only want one or two cosmetics a year will simply not need to spend money to get them with your idea, cutting Intrepids revenue.

Others will perhaps buy many more cosmetics than that, but will gain embers in game as they play, meaning they need to purchase fewer in order to get the cosmetics they want.

How is Intrepid going to make up this loss in revenue, in your mind?

I mean, this is a really big detrimental effect, yet you claim it has no detrimental effects.

Biccus

Right I am sorry but I skipped the second page because I didn’t want to lose my train of thought.

Now earning cosmetics through in game means doesn’t effect the market too badly imo. Every moba I’ve played has had it and I still managed to spend my real money on cosmetics just fine.

Gold to embers is a bad idea, it just is. I believe in mobas its alright because it rewards time played,(end of each game) I think it’s even healthy for companies to reward their less financially capable players with a chance at the cosmetics shop.

Now time played in ashes isn’t exactly easy to measure.. so some ideas I will put forward here for embers to be rewarded are; (amount isn’t relevant atm because it’s just an idea)
- successful caravan trip
- Getting embers for node level up contribution %
- successful node siege attack and/or defence.
- Successful castle siege attack and/or defence.
- Successful bounty hunt.
- Adding something to the library.
- Guild war victory (potential exploiting so maybe)
- Being elected Mayor (same as above)
- Tutoring success (same as above)
- Something for the crafting professions.

Theses are all just thoughts guys. Don’t get hung up on individual ideas. (I know who you are)
Obviously embers rewards would have to be very small in order to not devalue the cosmetics shop.

TLDR: It’s doable imo (not with gold) but balancing it would be the hard part.

bloodprophet

Several people keep bringing daily or login reward systems up as a way to "award" embers.
There were several long discussions around this and the community gave a resounding no with a few exceptions. It was so overwhelming to the no column they chose to stay away from it for all the right reasons.

https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/48009/dev-discussion-26-login-rewards/p1

https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/33123/i-agree-with-steven-daily-quests-log-in-rewards-often-become-chores

and many many more.

Okeydoke

nvm thats mean

Gizban

Biccus wrote: »

Right I am sorry but I skipped the second page because I didn’t want to lose my train of thought.

Now earning cosmetics through in game means doesn’t effect the market too badly imo. Every moba I’ve played has had it and I still managed to spend my real money on cosmetics just fine.

Gold to embers is a bad idea, it just is. I believe in mobas its alright because it rewards time played,(end of each game) I think it’s even healthy for companies to reward their less financially capable players with a chance at the cosmetics shop.

Now time played in ashes isn’t exactly easy to measure.. so some ideas I will put forward here for embers to be rewarded are; (amount isn’t relevant atm because it’s just an idea)
- successful caravan trip
- Getting embers for node level up contribution %
- successful node siege attack and/or defence.
- Successful castle siege attack and/or defence.
- Successful bounty hunt.
- Adding something to the library.
- Guild war victory (potential exploiting so maybe)
- Being elected Mayor (same as above)
- Tutoring success (same as above)
- Something for the crafting professions.

Theses are all just thoughts guys. Don’t get hung up on individual ideas. (I know who you are)
Obviously embers rewards would have to be very small in order to not devalue the cosmetics shop.

TLDR: It’s doable imo (not with gold) but balancing it would be the hard part.

Will we be submitting bank statements so IS can determine a 'less financially capable' player?

No participation awards. In-game cosmetics will be on par with Shop cosmetics. If you can't pay, you can't play.

Taleof2Cities

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.

My fault ... I could have explained better.

I would propose a slightly different setup than @Uncommon Sense.

Player #1 would only be able to buy items with Embers in the cash shop on behalf of Player #2.

Player #2 pays Player #1 in-game gold or other in-game currency.

There would be no conversion of Embers to increase gold/in-game currency for either Player #1 or Player #2 ... it would only be a gold transfer from Player #2 to Player #1.

That way, there would be no pay-to-win since the cash shop itself has no pay-to-win items.

However, it would increase revenues out of the cash shop ... since players would be aware that they could "gift" cosmetic items in return for in-game gold (or other currency).

bloodprophet

There will be no gifting of store items.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Cosmetic_store
All cosmetic store items will be non-tradeable.[7] There will be no gifting mechanism for cosmetic items.[8]

I don't want cosmetic items that can be purchased from the market to be transferable... because it is in a way a transfer of money for potentially something in-game.[8] – Steven Sharif

I agree with this stance.

Okeydoke

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

That way, there would be no pay-to-win since the cash shop itself has no pay-to-win items.

/puts on riot gear

that's p2w...

Atama

Okeydoke wrote: »

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

That way, there would be no pay-to-win since the cash shop itself has no pay-to-win items.

/puts on riot gear

that's p2w...

Yeah, it totally is P2W, you are correct.

Player 1 is buying in-game gold with cash. It’s legalized gold selling. Buying Embers with cash, trading them to another player for gold, then spending that gold on better gear in the game is very blatant P2W.

Okeydoke

I know it doesn't seem like p2w on the surface Taleof2cities. But humans corrupt everything they get their hands on, if allowed.

Gandalfthegrape

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.

No it's not. Pay to win means you pay money to have a power advantage over other players. Cosmetics by definition are the antithesis of that. Spending money on cosmetics is not pay to win, buying in game cosmetics is not pay to win, cosmetics are not pay to win. Cosmetics are not pay to win. Cosmetics are not pat to win. COMSETICS are not pay to win.

"one or made for the sake of appearance: such as
a: correcting defects especially of the face
cosmetic surgery
b: DECORATIVE, ORNAMENTAL
c: not substantive : SUPERFICIAL
cosmetic changes"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cosmetic

c: not substantive : SUPERFICIAL
c: not substantive : SUPERFICIAL
c: not substantive : SUPERFICIAL
c: not substantive : SUPERFICIAL
c: not substantive : SUPERFICIAL
c: not substantive : SUPERFICIAL
c: not substantive : SUPERFICIAL

Child Item