I backed the game a while back because of Mark Kern but had written it off as a PvP session based game, which I don't hate but isn't really my thing. I just finally got around to looking into the details, and I like where it's really going a lot more. With that said, I have a huge concern over the monetization, particularly 'convenience' items. Without getting into a debate over semantics of 'P2W' and it's ever changing definition to not include whatever game is being defended, let's just say it's a matter of principle for me. I've heard rumors of F2P and other 'live service tm' games that supposedly do it right (warframe for example) and every time I've looked into them I've found the rumors to be disingenuous BS, likely propagated by PR teams and paid shills.
So here is my issue. Pay for convenience often translates into skipping gameplay in some form or another, whether it be an exp boost, fast travel, or things like inventory space, or some other minor gameplay affecting feature. The issue is that it creates a perverse incentive to hamper a user's experience in order to sell convenience, creating a problem in order to sell the solution. There will always be an issue of trust.
Part of the issue is that most players will take a hardline stance against ever using a cash shop (as a defense against modern manipulative practices, though most will never admit it or are even self-aware enough to realize it), so the players who do pay have to pick up slack for the ones who don't, causing prices to inflate beyond what is reasonable. This inevitably leads to whaling as a single player willing and able to blow thousands on a game without a second thought is of far greater value than dozens of players only willing and able to blow $5-10 here and there, and why not milk both? Monetization inevitably shifts to favor whales, because voting with your wallet works and the biggest wallet get the biggest vote. Games that sell gameplay affecting items inevitably head down this path, half out of necessity (most of the players being hardened freeloaders) and half out of opportunity (how long can anyone stick to their principles and ideals when whales are eager to spend ridiculous sums, practically begging for ways to spend more? It's free easy money, and reasons not to take it dry up over time).
I get that cosmetics generally don't sell anywhere near as well as gameplay affecting items, and keeping a game running needs continual revenue, but we need a more honest and fair way to go about it. The original Guild Wars more or less pioneered the concept of a 1 time payment to play an MMO and funded their first game on expansions, so there is that to consider, not as profitable but better for the game and the customers (the incentive is based on player enjoyment rather than frustration). Then there is the currently failing and much hated subscription model.
Everyone knows subscription models don't work outside of a few exceptions anymore but everyone also ignores the elephant in the room, the reason why, the price. $15 a month translates into a $60 game every 4 months, hell $10 still translates to two $60 games a year. But then look at all the streaming services getting by at around $5-8 a month entry level subscriptions and there's the sweetspot. Unfortunately the game has already promised not to do subscription so this is more or less out of the question.
On a side note, an optional sub for 'convenience' features (like the crafting material storage in ESO) is a bad idea because without substance no one will buy it and with substance there is still the same trust issues that exist with cash shop items of the same variety, the nagging thought in the back of your mind that the game is made more frustrating than it should be in order to sell the service.
Either way, for me gameplay affecting microtransactions are a deal breaker and I cannot in good conscience support the game further if that's the plan, as much as it pains me to say it.
So here is my issue. Pay for convenience often translates into skipping gameplay in some form or another, whether it be an exp boost, fast travel, or things like inventory space, or some other minor gameplay affecting feature. The issue is that it creates a perverse incentive to hamper a user's experience in order to sell convenience, creating a problem in order to sell the solution. There will always be an issue of trust.
Part of the issue is that most players will take a hardline stance against ever using a cash shop (as a defense against modern manipulative practices, though most will never admit it or are even self-aware enough to realize it), so the players who do pay have to pick up slack for the ones who don't, causing prices to inflate beyond what is reasonable. This inevitably leads to whaling as a single player willing and able to blow thousands on a game without a second thought is of far greater value than dozens of players only willing and able to blow $5-10 here and there, and why not milk both? Monetization inevitably shifts to favor whales, because voting with your wallet works and the biggest wallet get the biggest vote. Games that sell gameplay affecting items inevitably head down this path, half out of necessity (most of the players being hardened freeloaders) and half out of opportunity (how long can anyone stick to their principles and ideals when whales are eager to spend ridiculous sums, practically begging for ways to spend more? It's free easy money, and reasons not to take it dry up over time).
I get that cosmetics generally don't sell anywhere near as well as gameplay affecting items, and keeping a game running needs continual revenue, but we need a more honest and fair way to go about it. The original Guild Wars more or less pioneered the concept of a 1 time payment to play an MMO and funded their first game on expansions, so there is that to consider, not as profitable but better for the game and the customers (the incentive is based on player enjoyment rather than frustration). Then there is the currently failing and much hated subscription model.
Everyone knows subscription models don't work outside of a few exceptions anymore but everyone also ignores the elephant in the room, the reason why, the price. $15 a month translates into a $60 game every 4 months, hell $10 still translates to two $60 games a year. But then look at all the streaming services getting by at around $5-8 a month entry level subscriptions and there's the sweetspot. Unfortunately the game has already promised not to do subscription so this is more or less out of the question.
On a side note, an optional sub for 'convenience' features (like the crafting material storage in ESO) is a bad idea because without substance no one will buy it and with substance there is still the same trust issues that exist with cash shop items of the same variety, the nagging thought in the back of your mind that the game is made more frustrating than it should be in order to sell the service.
Either way, for me gameplay affecting microtransactions are a deal breaker and I cannot in good conscience support the game further if that's the plan, as much as it pains me to say it.
