Greetings Friends! Welcome to todayâs edition of Update of the Avatar. We have some interesting revisits of info from my past 2 articles as well as a little bit of new update information for you . As always, feel free to comment below and give me your thoughts! I have been extremely happy to see regularly comments going on and some wonderful thoughts on the questions I posed last time. Letâs keep this up. In todayâs Update of the Avatar we will look at the following:
Recent Patch Changes including Revisiting the Lot Upgrade Changes
Revisiting In Game Store Buff Controversy, SotA Dev comments against Massively OP, and Editorial
An earlier version of R63, that i would expect to undergo patches, is on the SOTA QA server. Starr Long posted on the forms a link to the early version of the R63 Instructions that are also available for review. A R63 is planned to go live Thursday February 28!
As you can see in the instructions we have some notable new info like:
First Round of Encounter rooms for Player Made Dungeons
Valentines Day Seasonal event (I assume this is late due to timing of release schedule)
As always things could change in the next few days, but I would assume these notable things are good to go later this week. I am especially happy to see trident weapons myself. It is a style of weapon I had wanted since before the combat system was even created.
Recent Patch Changes & Lot Upgrade Changes
So we have had some notable patch changes in SotA during Release 62. As always, I highlight what I feel are the most notable ones. Feel free to visit the Shroud of the Avatar patch notes sections to view the most recent patch notes. We have the following updates:
Increased Player Owned Town Decoration Limits, which have already been patched in during Release 62âs Build 915 already.
Player Owned Towns (POT) have lower requirements for some lot types and you can upgrade your POT using Crowns, the premium currency used in SotA.
Changes to Lot Deed Upgrades from the original post I discussed during
Back in my Update 315 and 316 post, I talked about the upgrading lot sizes with crowns and how it was good lot type could not change from a taxed lot to an untaxed lot.
I brought up my concert that Portalarium was breaking their promise to Backers during the Kickstarter and post-Kickstarter era that Keep and Castle lot sizes would NOT be available in-game or Add-on store.
Recent updates by Portalarium have adjusted how this system works that is worth noting:
Portalarium has broken their past promise to backers and you ARE able to upgrade a taxable lot deed to Tax Free. However you cannot upgrade a deed to a Founder level deed.
Portalarium has decided that Tax Free Deeds that are NOT limited to POTs cannot be upgraded to Keep or Castle lot sized ones via this Crown Upgrade. This is something they promised backers, however in the next pointâŚ
Portalarium has made Keep and Castle deeds available to POT only Deeds and can be upgraded to, which still technically breaks their promise to backers.
Image below from their recent update post listings crown costs for upgrading lots deeds (spliced two screenshots together so get the whole section at full size)
While promises were broken, Portalarium is obviously in need of incoming to keep fiscally sound. With the staff level having decreased more than once since release, as well as the small active player base, what company wouldnât make changes to do what they can to stay afloat?
The increase to decorations is of course a fantastic change for any sandbox game, however hopefully it doesnât come with increased latency issues. Last time I checked in with some active players, latency from too much clutter was still an issue at times for some of them. In regards to the lot upgrade feature, even other news outlets have made notice of changes by Portalarium focused on this one goal â revenue.
Thankfully, I was never one of those larger backers from the Kickstarter era that gave so much as to have a Keep or Castle lot. As I am sure if I was still playing SotA, I would have been frustrated by their decision to make those lots available in a way outside what was promised. And while I have been contacted by a few who are not happy about this, as well as well as have seen on social media. Since they are Player Owned Town only deeds, they do not hold as much value as the Founder ones were.  This has helped quell some of the frustration from backers. Obviously making âpromisesâ was an incredible wrong way for Portalarium to do things during the Kickstarter era, and it continues to be a bad management decision that haunts them.
As I have not been invested in SotA anymore, I personally just do not care anymore. I consider my pledge to have been a bad investment and have happily moved on to better investments. I donât even care that my âcreate an NPCâ will never be fulfilled. I am however curious what the rest of you think about this lot deed upgrade situation. Make a comment below with your thoughts!
Revisiting In Game Store Buff Controversy, SotA Dev comments against Massively OP, and Editorial from GolemDragon
As I will cover alot of topics in this section, letâs set some context firstâŚ.
Last Update of the Avatar, we talked about the change Portalarium is making from a web-based store to an in-game store, for things like add-ons, crowns, etc. While they are still working on updating text and making other changes to improve the look & feel, as well as usability, Portalarium decided to give people who purchased anyone via the in-game store a 1 day buff for each purchase, with up to 3 buffs out of 22 possible being the limit at any time.  I am including the exact quote from the patch notes here.
Upon first glance, I personally found it a bit interesting that they felt like they had to encourage players to use something that would be obviously an improvement. The giving of buffs only if you purchased through the in-game store, were considered by some to be Pay to Win. MassivelyOP pointed this out in a recent post they did, highlighting the change to the new in-game store and I wanted to reference them as they broke that news before I did. I also referenced what I have said âad nauseamâ in todayâs post, about why I believe Portalarium made this decision in regards to giving buffs.
Well what has happened since my last postâŚ.Â
Well, I came to the decision that I find the change to crowns that is part of the store revamp, in which crowns are to be similar to the Atoms of Fallout 76, as in regards to their relation that a round number (in this case 100 crowns) is equal to 1 dollar, is a smart decision. It allows for easy conversion on the fly when looking at costs of items, allowing customers to decide if the item is worth it. Obviously, a great in-game store for PC and Mobile games, like in Elder Scrolls Online, Danmachi Memoria Freese, etc, can be a boon for a game with an online mode. As obviously revenue, as has been the theme of todayâs posts in general, is important for any studio.
However, I noticed that in the comments section of the post by Massively OP, Chris Spears of Portalarium made a comment requesting âcorrectionsâ to their story. His comments became a popular topic on social media, voice chat, and even led some to direct message me requesting I take a look at it ASAP. Â
Now I do want to break some of this down before I show you the response from Bree Royce, the author of the article at Massively OP. Chris argues here that the in-game store is NOT a cash shop and lists his reason reasons why. Letâs talk about the concepts of in-game stores, âcash shopsâ, microtransactions, and other such systems or terms. Going forward, as I clarify definitions of terms, keep in mind these are in regards to their use in video games. Obviously a cash shop outside of video games would be a shop that deals solely in cash and not credit cards or even written checks. As such it wouldnât apply here.
I would define a âCash Shopâ as not just an online store to purchase merchandise, copies of a game, subscriptions, etc; I would also include with it any in-game store where players can purchase virtual products such as: premium currency, equipment, characters, skins, buffs, features, and/or other like items using Legal Tender (typically credit card or other such means) to directly buy the item or to buy the aforementioned premium currency which is then used to buy the items. The product()s can be targeted specifically as to what item(s) the consumer wants or products can be bundled into a âlootboxâ which grants the consumer a product or products based on chance. These products in the âin-game storeâ are typically considered microtransactions due to the typical lower cost of the transaction. A cash stop simply requires legal tender to be an option to purchase a product from the in-game store. Obviously some games have a separate out of game store, like Elder Scrolls Online. However, the âout of the gameâ store traditionally has less products available. These other products tend to be copies of the game, larger cost game items like full expansions, merchandise, etc.
Now obviously we get to the topic of premium currency, Chris makes the argument that because you can get premium currency through gameplay, the in-game store should not be called a cash shop. He also makes the argument that âmost crowns spent in-game were purchased with gold from other players first and almost 10% of crowns drop in-game as loot.â I wish I had the exact data of how many crowns were dropped items, ones from pledges/bundles, and those purchased via legal tender whether it be through the web store, in game store, or the subscription that SotA has. However assuming Chris is accurate with these numbers, if say 99% of active accounts never purchase crowns in SotA using legal tender, that 1% that did, still makes it a cash shop.
I will use the one of the two mobile games I enjoy playing as an example. This particular game is free to play, and has both a normal currency and a premium currency. As you play the game and complete missions, events, achievements, etc you gain not just normal currency and items, but also premium currency.  I have played since release day and you can play through the whole game and get easily a few thousand dollars worth of free currency, just by playing the game. The best part is RNG or randomness never affects how much premium currency you get. The majority of users have not spent money on the game. Does that make the microtransactions in this mobile game for the premium currency any less of a cash store? Of course not.  Now free to play games where you can get lots of free premium currency is fantastic. It is just as wonderful when Buy to Play games with in-game stores, like Fallout 76, give you free premium currency while playing the game. Now while there is diminishing returns in regards to âatomsâ (Fallout 76âs premium currency) as you progress in Fallout 76, it still has a cash store.
What corrections did he want? What about the Pay to Win claims?
As you can see he continues to talk about the reasoning behind the buffs as a marketing method and how âscaryâ it supposedly is for them to be making this change from the website based store to the in-game store. He also claims the snippets included in the article did not include how temporary the receiving of the buffs would be (the buffs being given for at least 2 months or more) or that the buffâs strength would be the same regardless of how much many crowns were spent. However, if you look at her article, the reference always was there (see image below). She even had it with a light grey background to show it as a quote. And as you can see in his comment above, he even admits to the buffs being a bit of Pay to Win.
âPay to Winâ is something I would define as anything a player can purchase via legal tender or premium currency via an in-game store, that gives them a statistical advantage over other players. An example would be if two players have characters in which all elements are the same (gear, attributes, skills, level, etc) and even their level of skill at playing the game, and if one of those players purchased an item or buff from an in-game store that gave them some sort of advantage to them whether it be a change to their stats like either more health, attribute, boosted a skill, reduced cooldown, etc. Another example would be the ability to only get certain characters or items that statistically are always better due to higher stats, etc than those available via normal gameplay; because, they are purchased via premium currency or legal tender and are not able to be gained via gameplay only.
I would encourage devs to do simple things like some games do now where buffs or items are given to players just for logging into the game. A âdaily rewardâ system is very popular not just for free to play games, but for even some buy to play online games like Elder Scrolls Online. What Portalarium could have done in this situation, would have been to simply give a buff to the player for visiting the in-game store. No purchase necessary. This would have instantly stopped any claims of it being pay to win.
So what is the response to this dev comment?
The claims of MassivelyOP being inaccurate or leaving out certain details were not only false, they were blatant lies. Now while any company and its employees are welcome and free to defend the company they work for, and the decisions made in regards to the products made by the company, I would expect such a defense to be honest and typically handled via the PR department. However, Portalarium doesnât have a PR department or team.
I would go so far as to say that the only way the article by MassivelyOP could be taken as negative is if you: 1) focused solely on the claims of Pay to Win, which Chris even admits in the comments is true to an extent, or 2) you have a significant bias already against microtransactions in any video game. Bree Royce commented in a classy fashion as well, as I will show here below. Feel free to read, as I agree with what she said. Especially the comment âyouâre just trying to redefine cash shop in a way weâd never let any other game get away with.â That phrase alone defined what went through my head, before even reading her response. This is why I chose to do this larger section in todayâs post that included my editorializing. Now while I do not show every comment from Chris (I left one out), feel free to read some of the other comments and even rebuttals on MassivelyOP. The ones reminding me about the rollback during Release 56 was something that I forgot ever occurred.
Additional Responses after Ms. Royceâs response
Now microtransactions and cash shops/in-game stores have grown in use in video game development. Free to Play games on mobile, pc, and console have always been the typical games you would expect a cash shop and microtransactions to be in. However even full retail buy to play multiplayer online PC/console games are making use of them now. Even buy to play retail single player games on PC/console that use online, like the Lord Of the Ringsâs Shadows of War game, make use of such stores. You never interact with other players in Shadows of War, and it even originally included lootboxes and premium currency in its in-game store. Due to laws in some countries, the lootbox or âvia chanceâ style of product acquisition for consumers via microtransactions or in-game stores is no longer available. In the case of Shadows of War, the in-game store was patched to use only the basic currency you gain from playing the game.
Some games have done microtransactions and even lootboxes in a far more consumer friendly manner than others. Now while I feel the use of cash stores in full buy to play retail games has reached ridiculous proportions with them being used in Single Player only games, I want to know your thoughts? What are your thoughts on lootboxes or in the case of some mobile games âgachaâ style drawing mechanics using basic and premium currencies? Give us your comments below.
Shroud of the Avatar â Update of the Avatar #319 and #320 Greetings Friends! Welcome to today's edition of Update of the Avatar. We have some interesting revisits of info from my past 2 articles as well as a little bit of new update information for you .
