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

VmanGman

Noaani wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

Noaani You could buy embers with gold straight from the shop without ever making a transaction with another player. If you pay gold to the shop and just get some embers for it, there is no p2w. You’re assuming that the transaction happens between two players. There is an option where only one player and the shop are involved.

Edit: word

There are a few different ideas that have been thrown around this thread, each of them with their own drawbacks.

If you could buy embers with in game gold, it reduces the revenue Intrepid are able to gain from that cash shop.

If we are to assume that the subscription itself is not enough to maintain and add to the game, then we should not assume any addition that reduces the cash shop income is a viable option.

Sure, but I’m just pointing out that being able to buy embers with gold doesn’t have to mean p2w like you had suggested.

Spurius

Noaani wrote: »

If we are to assume that the subscription itself is not enough to maintain and add to the game

Who is assuming that and why?

Noaani

Spurius wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

If we are to assume that the subscription itself is not enough to maintain and add to the game

Who is assuming that and why?

We are all assuming that, because Steven has said as much.

Noaani

Iridianny wrote: »

Don't listen to shills that say "why would Intrepid cut their revenue stream?!" They speak as if they work for Intrepid rather than being just a consumer of their products.

No. We (or at least I) talk as if I have run our own businesses in the past, as well as run businesses for others in the past, and fully understand that you will not be successful in any industry if you literally give customers the option to not pay for your product - which is what the suggestion here is.

Spurius

I don't think Steven has ever said anything about subscription being

Noaani wrote: »

not enough to maintain and add to the game

The idea was the following: let's add money to the revenue stream, and thus add to the potential quality of the game, but let's make everything you can buy there cosmetic, so that to not simultaneously destroy it. No one was saying: "Oh jees, I don't think we will have enough money with that subscription thing, no way. We will need something else. I've tried going around the neighborhood selling AOC-themed cookies, but I don't think that will do. Cosmetic cash-shop it is then, boys. But that revenue better not be cut down by some in-game gold trickery! Or no expansions, you know." (c) Steven Sharif

It was probably more along the lines of:
"I want to incentivize purchase in the cosmetic shop for sustainability of what expansions we have intended, since we are not a box cost." (c) Actually Steven Sharif

I don't even know what you mean by "not enough to maintain and add". Intrepid will maintain and add to it's game even if it will end up having 10000 players with no cash-shop. It will just take longer for the expansions to come out.

Spurius

Noaani wrote: »

*I am a very cool buisnessman bla-bla-bla*
you will not be successful in any industry if you literally give customers the option to not pay for your product - which is what the suggestion here is.

Which is what the suggestion here is not. You pay for the game when you buy the subscription.

CROW3

If the cash shop is never P2W, then no matter how you purchase an item from the cash shop it is also never P2W.

The easiest way to eliminate the in game currency from being impacted by the shop currency is to make everything involved untradeable.

I think there are creative ways to thread the two revenue streams together to build value resulting in greater net revenue collection than by simply keeping the two streams mutually exclusive.

It’s at least worth exploring.

VmanGman

CROW3 wrote: »

If the cash shop is never P2W, then no matter how you purchase an item from the cash shop it is also never P2W.

The easiest way to eliminate the in game currency from being impacted by the shop currency is to make everything involved untradeable.

I think there are creative ways to thread the two revenue streams together to build value resulting in greater net revenue collection than by simply keeping the two streams mutually exclusive.

It’s at least worth exploring.

Everything from the cash shop is already untradeable. Problem solved!

CROW3

VmanGman wrote: »

Everything from the cash shop is already untradeable. Problem solved!

Yes and you would need to make embers or anything connecting in game experience to cash shop items also untradeable (not just the end items purchased) to keep it a closed system.

Caww

Even if account-bound embers were an alternative way to purchase the cosmetic shop items there would probably be a "carry-trade" work-around, no different than exp "carries". Just pay gold to a carry group and get the embers thru whatever the ingame methods are. I like the initiative of the various carry groups (scrolls/armor/skins) in other games and don't see why that won't happen within this game as well. It feels like cheating in the spirit of fair play but it's not actually against any rules of conduct (that I know of unless RL cash is involved). Since the cos play shop has no PTW items this is just another method for the players to get some extras (assuming the whole ember thing even materializes).

Repkar

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.

Think about it this way, with an avenue to earn in game gems with gold, this could lead to players with a lot of time on their hands who are very skilled to, "sell carries." This is a hot topic right now in most MMOs, and I'm pretty sure I know where intrepid stands, but it certainly wouldn't help. this may seem like it wouldn't be pay to win, but it would at the end of the day lead to carries, which is certainly pay to win. And while I have the utmost faith that Intrepid can and will try to get rid of as much RMT as possible, I am also going to be realistic and say no MMO has ever been able to purely remove RMT.

As such, I have to disagree. I would never want to see gems purchased with gold.

CROW3

Repkar wrote: »

Think about it this way, with an avenue to earn in game gems with gold, this could lead to players with a lot of time on their hands who are very skilled to, "sell carries." This is a hot topic right now in most MMOs, and I'm pretty sure I know where intrepid stands, but it certainly wouldn't help. this may seem like it wouldn't be pay to win, but it would at the end of the day lead to carries, which is certainly pay to win.

I’m not following - could you help me understand who’s winning, how are they winning, and what specifically is helping someone win?

Iridianny

Noaani wrote: »

Iridianny wrote: »

Don't listen to shills that say "why would Intrepid cut their revenue stream?!" They speak as if they work for Intrepid rather than being just a consumer of their products.

No. We (or at least I) talk as if I have run our own businesses in the past, as well as run businesses for others in the past, and fully understand that you will not be successful in any industry if you literally give customers the option to not pay for your product - which is what the suggestion here is.

You ignore the second part of my post which is a common thing for you. Here it is.
Also, that makes no sense that it cuts into revenue stream. The cash shop is apparently only ever going to be an optional service with solely "non pay to win" cosmetics. So, those who just want to pay with real money could do it anyway. This would just open more opportunity for people to 1. engage with the cash shop often and 2. play their game longer to achieve those cosmetics possibly providing more months of subscription fees every time more cosmetics are released.
It just gives another incentive for players to playthe game and more to do!

And okay don’t pretend like you aren’t a guy who spent $500+ on a promise “intrepid pack” with this game and feel “invested” because you have thousands of embers to spend on cash shop items. You don’t want your precious embers to be invalidated in any way you consider would make you feel less special for having them. Get over yourself.
Having multiple ways to achieve items in the cash shop is a good idea and would keep people playing longer which is a much more important revenue stream anyone with a product or business understands.

Iridianny

CROW3 wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

Everything from the cash shop is already untradeable. Problem solved!

Yes and you would need to make embers or anything connecting in game experience to cash shop items also untradeable (not just the end items purchased) to keep it a closed system.

Great you solved the issue. Make embers untradeable and this is a great idea! It’s really that simple. No you don’t have to make gold untradeable in this idea anymore so than without it. People will still farm gold, gold is still power in this game, and they can sell it and trade it for power “cheating the spirit of the game.” Good luck policing these people even without this idea.
I think it’s a wonderful idea to allow the cash shop items achieved through gold or another in game currency. Gives more to do in game and allows people to who otherwise wouldn’t interact with the cash shop more often.

VmanGman

CROW3 wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

Everything from the cash shop is already untradeable. Problem solved!

Yes and you would need to make embers or anything connecting in game experience to cash shop items also untradeable (not just the end items purchased) to keep it a closed system.

Yes, that’s also already true. Problem solved!

Repkar

CROW3 wrote: »

Repkar wrote: »

Think about it this way, with an avenue to earn in game gems with gold, this could lead to players with a lot of time on their hands who are very skilled to, "sell carries." This is a hot topic right now in most MMOs, and I'm pretty sure I know where intrepid stands, but it certainly wouldn't help. this may seem like it wouldn't be pay to win, but it would at the end of the day lead to carries, which is certainly pay to win.

I’m not following - could you help me understand who’s winning, how are they winning, and what specifically is helping someone win?

Alright, I will break this down.

Ok, let's first ask ourselves, what does a player typically mean by pay to win?

Typically Pay to win is what happens when a player uses currency to advance their character in any way, that requires some type of monetary transaction. I think we can all agree on this.

Now, the next question, which is the literal point of this entire post. Is buying embers with in-game currency Pay to win? No. It isn't. In no way can you advance your character in the game with anything off the shop.

But this issue goes way deeper than you realize. Because RMT from third parties will always exist in video games. And giving anyone the option to purchase shop items with in-game currency will only lead to RMT.

Let's look at the issues that World of Warcraft is facing currently. Right now, the game is rampant with, "carrying services." And Blizzard is having a hard time facing up against them, the only logical conclusion will be to blanket ban carrying services. (Which is bad for guilds or bidding runs in raid, or simple groups trying to make some extra cash.)

And Blizzard did this to themselves, out of greed they put the Token on the cash shop that players can use to purchase gold and others can buy the token with in-game gold and purchase game time/things off the store.

So, how is this pay to win? Because Blizzard isn't selling anything off the shop that advances a character in an unfair way.

The answer is communities that hide behind the guise of a regular player, RMT is cheaper in wow than buying the token that turns into money, so players buying carries will spend real money over buying the token.

But this wouldn't happen in Ashes..... is what I would assume your point would be. Because there is no token.

That is where you are wrong my friend. As long as there will be something a player can buy with gold over real world money there will be groups abusing it. The economy is simple, you have players who want to buy gold to buy carries, you have players who sell carries for gold who want to purchase shop items.

But there is a third group, you have players who want to sell carries to sell gold with RMT. And those people will hide behind the guise of, "just buying gems lol," while skimming 10% off the top and selling for real world money." Which has been proven over the past year with many interviews with RMT gold/account sellers.

No, purchasing gems with in-game gold is a bad, proven, red herring.

Yes, I have read your points, there are so many systems Intrepid could implement to try to block players from abusing the system. But I ask you, at what point is it worth it when you need 10 systems just to make sure purchasing gems with gold is possibly un-abuseable. What would you give up? Would you give up the ability to trade gold to other players? your alts? Would you fault an entire economy because you want a special looking horsey on the store?

I stand by what I said, I disagree.

Caeryl

It makes no sense to bring unapproved RMT into this conversation because that is always disallowed and yet no matter if suggestion is implemented or not, it will always exist. The reason people oppose tradable cash shop currencies is because it moves all the skeevy cash-to-gold transactions in-house. It implicitly tells customers that unsupported RMT is acceptable as long as it’s lining company pockets. That’s not what a system like this does.

Companies allowing their money-poor, time-rich players to access otherwise cash-only cosmetics is not an invitation of unsupported RMT. It’s a gift to their active players. It may take significantly more time and significantly more effort, but a player can earn their cosmetics through gameplay while they simply pay the monthly sub cost. Whether they’re earned via converting gold to Embers, or earning Embers directly through various ingame activities is up to the discretion of the developers. But neither of these tell customers that RMT is encouraged or acceptable.

CROW3

Repkar wrote: »

Think about it this way, with an avenue to earn in game gems with gold…

Ah, here’s the nuance. I wouldn’t want a conversion in any way between embers and gold. My point would be exploring a way to earn non-tradeable embers, not implement a way to convert gold to embers.

Basic constraints:
- some form of embers could be earned in game
- Embers are bound to a player and cannot be traded
- At no point can gold be converted to embers, or embers to gold
- Any item purchased using embers are bound to the player and cannot be traded

Certainly you can still have ‘carries’ paid in gold, those will exist for all sorts of activities. None of those are Intrepid baking in pay to win.

Obviously, you can have P2W behavior outside the game’s boundaries - for example using Venmo to pay real currency for runs within the game, items, etc, but there’s only so much IS has the ability to control.

Totally respect your disagreement, but I’d like to make sure we’re disagreeing on an accurate articulation of our respective arguments.

Noaani

Spurius wrote: »

No one was saying: "Oh jees, I don't think we will have enough money with that subscription thing, no way. We will need something else. I've tried going around the neighborhood selling AOC-themed cookies, but I don't think that will do. Cosmetic cash-shop it is then, boys. But that revenue better not be cut down by some in-game gold trickery! Or no expansions, you know." (c) Steven Sharif

Well, not in those exact words, no.

What they have said is the following

Because we are a non-box purchase game, meaning there is no box price to play Ashes of Creation, it is only a subscription; and that's beneficial because it reduces the barrier of entry and we want a high population obviously; but at the same time one of the ways we augment the revenue flows to sustain constant updates and new chapter releases and additional content within the game is through a cosmetic-only marketplace; and that means absolutely no pay-to-win whatsoever; and that will be adhered to forever.

So, yeah.

Less money earned from the cash shop OBVIOUSLY means less money for Intrepid to spend on additions to the game. Since they don't plan on charging us for those additions, I challenge you to argue that this is not the case.

So really, the argument for adding a means to buy embers with in game gold is really an argument for less post launch content for the game - because that is the result it will have.

Noaani

Iridianny wrote: »

Also, that makes no sense that it cuts into revenue stream. The cash shop is apparently only ever going to be an optional service with solely "non pay to win" cosmetics. So, those who just want to pay with real money could do it anyway.

I didn't address it this time around because I have addressed it so many times in this thread and you have ignored it each and every time.

However, you are attempting to call me out on it now, you can't just ignore it this time, so I'll reply again.

Those who want to pay could still pay, but that is a smaller group than those who are willing to pay if it is the only option. The group of people willing to pay for an item that is only able to be obtained by purchasing it is also smaller than the group of people wanting to buy an item that can be obtained with gold - cash shop purchases cease to be a sign that you support Intrepid with this, so many people simply will not buy them as such.

Also, if the ability to earn embers in game is added in - as has been your suggestion this whole thread - then even those willing to pay would not need to pay as much, because they will have embers they have earned just sitting there.

The simple fact is, if embers are able to be obtained in game, Intrepid will make less money. If Intrepid make less money, that means less additional post launch content for the game.

Child Item