Is this MMO going to have any monetary features?

Is this MMO going to have monetary features other than purchasing the game and a subscription?
Examples: Paying to level up - Buying mounts and other cosmetic features, etc.

IMO if at all possible, if you can muster it (like the world most popular MMO for its first 3 expansions), I would not put any of these in game. If any monetary features are in the game even harmless skins I personally am going to be less inclined to purchase AOC.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Schmuky

Asgerr wrote: »

EVE Online absolutely has cosmetics.

WoW Classic is basically a dead game that was resurrected to function like it did in early 2000. Not sure that counts either as we're basically talking about a game that ceased to exist nearly 20 years ago.

DayZ, Diablo 2, Escape from Tarkov, aren't MMOs though, so also not applicable to the current discussion.

let him answer my question first! there is no way he prefers pay-to-win over cosmetics!!! it can't be!

Iridianny

I’ve made a thread about a distaste for paid for cosmetics and so have many others. The simple issue these defenders have with this opinion is that they are already all bought into hundreds of dollars worth of cosmetics for this unreleased game and they have “embers” they are terrified of being devalued. (And some are just acting like Steven shills… let’s be real.)

The truth is cosmetic cash shops are a cheap way to monetize a game and Steven/this game company does not care how it will devalue the experience. There are plenty of options to avoid a cash shop and ultimately it would make the game more popular if they went down that route. Charging for extra character slots or raising the sub cost to a reasonable amount to afford paying for artists are two non invasive to gameplay experience examples.

Also, there is a reason they want a cash shop implemented at the start of the game. It’s so that they don’t have to add it later and lose players for that change. If the company is ever bought out, which is very common, you can guarantee that there will be a lot more added to that conveniently-player-base-accepted cash shop than just cosmetics. Which is just another reason to not have it as part of the game’s experience.

Asgerr

Iridianny wrote: »

I’ve made a thread about a distaste for paid for cosmetics and so have many others. The simple issue these defenders have with this opinion is that they are already all bought into hundreds of dollars worth of cosmetics for this unreleased game and they have “embers” they are terrified of being devalued. (And some are just acting like Steven shills… let’s be real.)

The truth is cosmetic cash shops are a cheap way to monetize a game and Steven/this game company does not care how it will devalue the experience. There are plenty of options to avoid a cash shop and ultimately it would make the game more popular if they went down that route. Charging for extra character slots or raising the sub cost to a reasonable amount to afford paying for artists are two non invasive to gameplay experience examples.

Also, there is a reason they want a cash shop implemented at the start of the game. It’s so that they don’t have to add it later and lose players for that change. If the company is ever bought out, which is very common, you can guarantee that there will be a lot more added to that conveniently-player-base-accepted cash shop than just cosmetics. Which is just another reason to not have it as part of the game’s experience.

These are way worse options to prevent a cosmetic only shop.

Plus, the more you charge for a subscription, the fewer players you will have. Do you think this would be a game without box cost if they didn't care for the amount of active players?

The reason they added the Cosmetic shop, is because the game has no box cost and a low sub cost, as a way to limit a barrier of entry.

We don't all have some fear that the cosmetics will be taken away from us. A majority of those who insist a Cosmetic shop is ok, haven't even bought any packs. We simply don't think it will take away from the larger experience.

Your assumption of "they will add more shit that isn't cosmetic" is dumb. And you know it. The whole point of this game is for it to be a sort of hardcore game, with no Pay 2 Win.

And let's say Intrepid betrayed their ideals and added Pay 2 Win, the Cosmetic shop will be the last thing I'll be blaming that change on.

Now out with you, doomsayer.

PherPhur

NiKr wrote: »

You only pay for the sub (no game purchase) and there's a cosmetics store. That's it. No p2w, no pay for convenience.

There will be heavy p2w features in this game due to botting, gold farmers and RWT.

It just won't be offered by Intrepid.

Hinotori

Iridianny wrote: »

Charging for extra character slots or raising the sub cost to a reasonable amount to afford paying for artists are two non invasive to gameplay experience examples.

Raising the sub fee will not work. Just look at eve online. Raised the sub fee to $20 per month to become the most expensive subscription MMO and is now absolutely haemorrhaging players.

Everyone who hasn't left has dropped to the free to play option. Which spoiler alert isn't sustainable once the 1% whales buying plex realise the sandbox is empty and stop having fun.

As for charging for character slots I feel this slots in to pay for convenience. Although it's not directly pay to win it just leaves a sour taste especially for those wishing to make alts it seems like something neowiz would do for the (what are we up to now) 9th time? They reboot Bless.

Ludullu

ChipsAhoy007 wrote: »

There will be heavy p2w features in this game due to botting, gold farmers and RWT.

It just won't be offered by Intrepid.

Same as pretty much every other mmo, to my knowledge. That doesn't change the fact of our transactions with Intrepid.

Hinotori

ChipsAhoy007 wrote: »

There will be heavy p2w features in this game due to botting, gold farmers and RWT.

It just won't be offered by Intrepid.

Intrepid is already working to mitigate this as much as possible.

Asgerr

ChipsAhoy007 wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

You only pay for the sub (no game purchase) and there's a cosmetics store. That's it. No p2w, no pay for convenience.

There will be heavy p2w features in this game due to botting, gold farmers and RWT.

It just won't be offered by Intrepid.

So your solution is to entirely remove all in game money? Do we really have to go back to bartering?

BaSkA_9x2

ChipsAhoy007 wrote: »

There will be heavy p2w features in this game due to botting, gold farmers and RWT.

It just won't be offered by Intrepid.

That argument is ludicrous, it makes me laugh every time. According to that logic, Elden Ring and Dark Souls are P2W, all you need to do is buy a Steam account from someone who has all the best gear. Even CSGO is P2W, since you can just ask people at the start of a match how much money they want to throw that match. Hell, literally every game ever made is P2W, since everything and everyone has a price. No point in coming to these forums, why even play any games at all since they are all P2W, according to your logic.

Let's make something very clear: P2W is when the company/developer/publisher sells any type of convenience, advantage, time skip, in-game currency, power, etc. for real money in an online game. If you don't understand what P2W means, then you might think that spending real money and breaking a game's rules is also P2W, and you'd be wrong. If RWT was not against ToS, then I'd accept that argument, which is not the case here.

In ashes, RWT means cheating. You might pay real money to some random person and "win", but you'll also get banned, so sadly you can't win if you're banned.

Iridianny

Asgerr wrote: »

the more you charge for a subscription, the fewer players you will have.

That’s just not an absolute. If the game is worth it, people can pay $5 more than the “acceptable” price that’s been the same since the 90’s. Other entertainment sub services have changed their price over time and people still use them.

Asgerr wrote: »

The reason they added the Cosmetic shop, is because the game has no box cost and a low sub cost, as a way to limit a barrier of entry.

I understand they are using this reasoning I just disagree with its necessity and don’t believe that a slightly higher sub, than other games, is a for-sure barrier of entry for a **brand new game** as long as it’s done at the start.

Asgerr wrote: »

We simply don't think it will take away from the larger experience.

There is an unmistakable lesser experience and vibe to games with cosmetic shops. Ever played retail WoW or RuneScape 3 compared to their classic versions? It breaks immersion, it reduces the significance of earning cool items in game, and it emphasizes that your visual experience in the game will be directly tied to your to real life wealth. Visual experience is the whole reason video games exist over tabletop games. Also, just a whole cash shop in itself, with anything in it, is just a feature that takes away from gameplay.

Asgerr wrote: »

Your assumption of "they will add more shit that isn't cosmetic" is dumb. And you know it. The whole point of this game is for it to be a sort of hardcore game, with no Pay 2 Win.
And let's say Intrepid betrayed their ideals and added Pay 2 Win, the Cosmetic shop will be the last thing I'll be blaming that change on.

It’s not dumb, it’s realistic. Look at trends with other games. Just trusting the creators “vision” for one aspect of the game (it’s not the whole point… the whole point is it’s a fantasy mmo) will stand up forever if the game is bought out is dumb. Big companies don’t care about and have proven it throughout time. It’s logical to assume they will utilize the cash shop already implemented as it clearly shows that the game was created with a cash shop as the core monetization! XD

I’m not a doomsayer, you are just an idealist.

Iridianny

Natasha wrote: »

Raising the sub fee will not work. Just look at eve online. Raised the sub fee to $20 per month to become the most expensive subscription MMO and is now absolutely haemorrhaging players.

They are not “raising the sub fee” of an already released game. They would be releasing it with a higher sub fee than the average cost since the 90’s and that’s not as big a deal as they want you to believe.

Natasha wrote: »

As for charging for character slots I feel this slots in to pay for convenience. Although it's not directly pay to win it just leaves a sour taste especially for those wishing to make alts it seems like something neowiz would do for the (what are we up to now) 9th time? They reboot Bless.

Paying for cosmetics leaves a sour taste in my mouth as it directly affects my gameplay experience in game, on any character. Having to pay for more character slots does not affect your in game experience on your other characters.

Noaani

Iridianny wrote: »

Asgerr wrote: »

the more you charge for a subscription, the fewer players you will have.

That’s just not an absolute. If the game is worth it, people can pay $5 more than the “acceptable” price that’s been the same since the 90’s. Other entertainment sub services have changed their price over time and people still use them.

No, it is an absolute.

Every time someone like Netflix or Amazon increase their subscription fee, they expect to lose subscribers.

Many will stick with the service and pay the higher fee, but not all will.

If you add 33% to the cost of a subscription over what your rivals are charging, you can guarantee you will lose some subscriptions because of it.

It may still be worth doing it, but you absolutely will lose some subscriptions.

Iridianny

Noaani wrote: »

Iridianny wrote: »

Asgerr wrote: »

the more you charge for a subscription, the fewer players you will have.

That’s just not an absolute. If the game is worth it, people can pay $5 more than the “acceptable” price that’s been the same since the 90’s. Other entertainment sub services have changed their price over time and people still use them.

No, it is an absolute.

Every time someone like Netflix or Amazon increase their subscription fee, they expect to lose subscribers.

Many will stick with the service and pay the higher fee, but not all will.

If you add 33% to the cost of a subscription over what your rivals are charging, you can guarantee you will lose some subscriptions because of it.

It may still be worth doing it, but you absolutely will lose some subscriptions.

You are failing to see they aren’t “raising” the sub fee unless the game is released and people are paying the sub fee.

Noaani

Iridianny wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Iridianny wrote: »

Asgerr wrote: »

the more you charge for a subscription, the fewer players you will have.

That’s just not an absolute. If the game is worth it, people can pay $5 more than the “acceptable” price that’s been the same since the 90’s. Other entertainment sub services have changed their price over time and people still use them.

No, it is an absolute.

Every time someone like Netflix or Amazon increase their subscription fee, they expect to lose subscribers.

Many will stick with the service and pay the higher fee, but not all will.

If you add 33% to the cost of a subscription over what your rivals are charging, you can guarantee you will lose some subscriptions because of it.

It may still be worth doing it, but you absolutely will lose some subscriptions.

You are failing to see they aren’t “raising” the sub fee unless the game is released and people are paying the sub fee.

No I'm not.

The original statement was "the more you charge for a subscription, the fewer players you will have". It has nothing at all to do with launch, or raising the fee - I simply used Netflix and Amazon as analogies in a seemingly failed attempt to enable you to understand better.

If Intrepid launch the game with a $20 subscription fee, they will have fewer players than if they launch it with a $15 fee. Again, I am not saying that this means they shouldn't (I would personally be fine with it), I am simply stating that it is a fact that there will be fewer players.

Iridianny

Noaani wrote: »

If Intrepid launch the game with a $20 subscription fee, they will have fewer players than if they launch it with a $15 fee. Again, I am not saying that this means they shouldn't (I would personally be fine with it), I am simply stating that it is a fact that there will be fewer players.

Idk if that is accurate in today’s gaming world and if you are using data from previous mmo launches to determine that, it is probably outdated. Also, what are the mmo's that launched at that price to use as reference for that?
They can offer a free trial which would remove that barrier for entry and then people decide if they do/don’t like it in that free trial. The $5 more than the current average price of mmo’s won’t make a difference in their decision at that point.
I think the potential risk you are worried about is way less than the risk of p2w being implemented later in their already established cash shop monetization model.

Unless you think future p2w is less of a concern than a potentially and slightly smaller player base?

Noaani

Iridianny wrote: »

The $5 more than the current average price of mmo’s won’t make a difference in their decision at that point.

$5 a month will literally always be the deciding factor for some people.

This is true at all times, but is especially true heading in to a recession.

Also, I am unsure what this "potential risk" you seem to think I am talking about is.

I am talking basic economics here. I have already said several times that I don't care if Intrepid do it or not - they are the ones that decide.

If they lose 10% of their player base based on that additional $5 (which is on the low end of reasonable), financially, it may be worth it for them, as they gain an additional 33% revenue from people that are left - and those that left due to $5 are likely not people that would have spent much on cosmetics, so store sales won't suffer.

They stand to make more money doing this - the question then becomes "is the lower in game population worth the extra income, or are higher population servers likely to be worth more in the long term?".

You and I can't answer that. All we can do is discuss the simple economic fact that higher prices for something that is not in limited supply generally mean fewer people will buy it, if there is a comparable alternative.

Iridianny

Noaani wrote: »

Iridianny wrote: »

The $5 more than the current average price of mmo’s won’t make a difference in their decision at that point.[/b]

$5 a month will literally always be the deciding factor for some people.
This is true at all times, but is especially true heading in to a recession.

To go off of what you said, a cosmetic shop would then make no revenue in a recession as people will especially be less willing to dish out $20+ extra dollars for cosmetics than to pay $5 extra to play the game at all. I suppose you are assuming that the game will be running on a select few "big spenders" when this is the case? Thus returning to my point, "it emphasizes that your visual experience in the game will be directly tied to your to real life wealth." There can simply be a donation option for those who are simply hell bent on donating hundreds of dollars to the game. There are other rewards you can offer to those who donate that don't affect gameplay, too!

Noaani wrote: »

If they lose 10% of their player base based on that additional $5 (which is on the low end of reasonable), financially, it may be worth it for them, as they gain an additional 33% revenue from people that are left - and those that left due to $5 are likely not people that would have spent much on cosmetics, so store sales won't suffer.

What are the mmo's that launched at that price to use as reference for all of that? Loss of a potential player estimate could happen due to a variety of reasons not necessarily just the slight increase to sub fee that is the 20 year average for an mmo. Some players might be new to mmos and don't know that $15 is "the average." Regardless, these numbers you offered don't really mean anything as they have no player base to lose when the game is first launched except predicted player base. They should be prepared for predicted numbers to be completely off when their game launches anyway.

You think future p2w is less of a concern than a potentially and slightly smaller player base than predicted?

LeoManechest

Asgerr wrote: »

LeoManechest wrote: »

MaiWaifu wrote: »

LeoManechest wrote: »

No, I've been playing games that don't have cosmetics in them.

Not trying to argue, I'm genuinely just curious.

What online game; that's still active, has no cosmetics?

It's probably worth trying out to compare how they do it.

DayZ, Diablo 2, Diablo 2 Resurrected, WoW Vanilla Classic, Escape from Tarkov, Eve Online , etc. are some of the games I've played with no cosmetics.

If you don't like a feature in a game, there are so many other games out there ...

People seem to feel like they have to play these Pay 2 Win, Pay for Cosmetic trash games ...

EVE Online absolutely has cosmetics.

WoW Classic is basically a dead game that was resurrected to function like it did in early 2000. Not sure that counts either as we're basically talking about a game that ceased to exist nearly 20 years ago.

DayZ, Diablo 2, Escape from Tarkov, aren't MMOs though, so also not applicable to the current discussion.

Eve had cosmetics that no one used as far as I could see, and were more like stickers. It wasn't like an entirely different looking ship but had the same stats.

It's not about if it's an MMO or not. There are other ways to entertain yourself. You don't have to play free to play, pay to win, pay for cosmetics games

LeoManechest

Schmuky wrote: »

Wait, hold on, just read this threat.

@LeoManechest, my man, did you seriously consider games like WoW Classic and EVE, games where you can legit buy in-game currency, making them 100% pay-to-win, better than games that have cosmetics? Really??

Because if that true, have I got a gem of a game for you:

It's called Diablo Immortal, its even "free-to-play" on your phone, no cosmetics as far as i heard!

Eve had cosmetics that no one used, more like stickers. It wouldn't change the entire appearance of the ship to look like something completely different.

WoW *VANILLA* Classic has no pay for gold, pay for anything other than sub. I didn't play TBC because of the pay for money and boosted characters. And I will not be playing Wrath Of The Lich King Classic either. I will play something else instead because I don't support those features.

And you read me all wrong, Diablo Immortal is not a game I would play either.

Iridianny

LeoManechest wrote: »

WoW *VANILLA* Classic has no pay for gold, pay for anything other than sub. I didn't play TBC because of the pay for money and boosted characters. And I will not be playing Wrath Of The Lich King Classic either.

They had to remove "/spit" emote from the game because the player base hated they added a cash shop and shunned players who used it.

Child Item