Make in-store items purchasable with tokens

[Ants]

or tokens will become worthless again like last world

What's the worth of tokens? 1 month playtime? Where is that related to world ends? The worth is there as long you can grab playtime for it ...

1 month playtime, but the maximum playtime you can have on one account is 2 years, so 20 tokens. People with more tokens than that can either keep hoarding them or use them on alt accounts.

What would the drawbacks be? Why would you be skeptical about turning them into general store credit?

Doing this would only increase the amount that are bought, and the value of them in-game. If anything, you could also just add "vouchers" for various amounts of store currency that can be redeemed in-game to accomplish this, although at a slight markup (i.e 25% $10 = $12.50)

The game already caters to real money trading, so I don't really see any downsides.

Already people only buy tokens and not much of anything else. Something like this would just make the problem worse than what it currently is.
In legacy one could forage some blueberries and collect a few bluebells and pearls to buy something that he wants. But now, you basically have to buy tokens to buy anything from other players.

That's not the fault of tokens. That's the fault of foraging being shit and the food system being shit. The foraging issue could be fixed by making wild forageables craftable into good curios and recipes, kind of like the bug collection.

[pawnchito]

Having a way to buy verified accounts sounds tempting as hell. Also having a way to facilitate trades of hats would be fantastic and using the store certainly sounds more secure.

[Ants]

More ways to spend them would be sweet, but I'm skeptical about turning them into general store credit.

I'm not sure what else tokens could be used for. They could be made into curios or gildings, but that might be too close to being "pay to win" for some people. Maybe tossing tokens into wells could give temporary stat boosts?

Having a way to buy verified accounts sounds tempting as hell. Also having a way to facilitate trades of hats would be fantastic and using the store certainly sounds more secure.

Hats really should be made purchasable in barter stands, too. That would facilitate hat trade.

[Agrik]

Bump. Some people have hundreds of tokens and need more ways to spend them.

This literally says "Some people gave money to jorbtar for their own reasons and now think that they have to get personally more for that". An expectation on the verge of manipulation, I'd say: to give money and then start to discuss, hinting that other side owes you something. If such people exist, they're free ask for refund if they like to, I suppose?

What would the drawbacks be?

More disparity on the game board between those who paid more and those who paid less. It makes a game less a game and more a shop. "I paid more so it is fair that I look better and have an upper hand generally" kind of shop.

If one wants to support devs, he doesn't have to get anything in return regardless of his spendings, he gets a better game for this.

On the other hand, if one asks to get something in return personally, it clearly isn't a sole (?) wish to support a game and can be cut down to the amount one is willing to pay for the game itself, without trading for personal preferences.

[loleznub]

What would the drawbacks be?

More disparity on the game board between those who paid more and those who paid less. It makes a game less a game and more a shop. "I paid more so it is fair that I look better and have an upper hand generally" kind of shop.

If one wants to support devs, he doesn't have to get anything in return regardless of his spendings, he gets a better game for this.

On the other hand, if one asks to get something in return personally, it clearly isn't a sole (?) wish to support a game and can be cut down to the amount one is willing to pay for the game itself, without trading for personal preferences.

There would not be more disparity than there already is, though. Those that want to use real money to purchase in-game items will always be a thing. Adding in additional things such as money vouchers would not change this fact, but merely change the fact that people could get things from the store that they couldn't previously.

For example, someone wants to get verification on their account, but isn't willing to spend the money on a game. However, they do have ~300 points worth of pearls they are willing to trade for vouchers worth the amount for account verification.

The simple case is that while tokens are a thing, there will always be a disparity between those that are willing to pay money for them and those that aren't. The only thing that will fix that is the removal of all things cash related (tokens, tradable hats, etc), but will then only open the doors to paypal transactions and items just being sold for straight cash instead. This just means the seller gets the money and can spend on whatever they want and the developers don't get anything out of it.

There are also a plethora of items that can be acquired in-game that are worth quite a bit, and are relatively easy to come by that can be used as capital instead of tokens. This assumes you're willing to go play the game, though. I won't believe for one second that the majority of trading occurs strictly through tokens.

edit: I would rather see the devs get the money through token/voucher transactions instead of players selling the items through paypal/discord conversations exclusively for their own gain

[Agrik]

There would not be more disparity than there already is, though. Those that want to use real money to purchase in-game items will always be a thing. Adding in additional things such as money vouchers would not change this fact, but merely change the fact that people could get things from the store that they couldn't previously.

Yes, there will always be people wanting to purchase ingame items. As there always will be many unwanted things like crimes, diseases, and death. And like these things, all we can do with RMT is to help it or to counter it. With RMT being helped, it will be easier and more tempting for people, more weak ones will have access, and more unsure ones will not abstain. People are not that rigid in their decisions and views.

For example, someone wants to get verification on their account, but isn't willing to spend the money on a game.

That's a trouble that F2P games have: people who pay and people who don't, both playing on the same game field. This is disparity, but limited to people who wish to play handicapped in the way set by devs. If we help them to get subscription for ingame labor, we attract more people into such disparity, from both sides. For more income, yes.

There will always be people willing to pay for you to harm your own project. No, it isn't intentional usually, these people just don't care, being used simply to pay for what they personally want. And sometimes it ruins the game experience.

The only thing that will fix that is the removal of all things cash related (tokens, tradable hats, etc), but will then only open the doors to paypal transactions and items just being sold for straight cash instead.

Not only this. Such a trade will become harder for some to use as well, thus reducing number of people involved.

edit: I would rather see the devs get the money through token/voucher transactions instead of players selling the items through paypal/discord conversations exclusively for their own gain

They can't do it "for their own gain". In this case devs get the money as well, because people still have to get that subscription/verification/etc. they are giving to other player.

[loleznub]

Yes, there will always be people wanting to purchase ingame items. As there always will be many unwanted things like crimes, diseases, and death. And like these things, all we can do with RMT is to help it or to counter it. With RMT being helped, it will be easier and more tempting for people, more weak ones will have access, and more unsure ones will not abstain. People are not that rigid in their decisions and views.

No, adding more uses for tokens, or adding vouchers would not do this. It's not going to change the price of the current market by any means by flooding it with RMT transactions. The market of in-game items would remain stable as a price per dollar spent. For instance, a sub-token costs $10. They are worth ~120 gold coins or 1.2 nuggets of gold per dollar. If more items are introduced, such as vouchers, I would assess that it's very likely that the transactions would follow the same point costs. For instance a voucher for $20 would then be 240 gold coins, or 1.2 nuggets of gold per dollar spent. The fact of the matter is that someone that's going to spend money for this type of stuff is going to and that's that. Someone who wasn't because it was too costly to do so isn't going to start because new items were added. Why would they spent $10 on a voucher now, when they wouldn't spend that same $10 for a token in the past to trade?

That's a trouble that F2P games have: people who pay and people who don't, both playing on the same game field. This is disparity, but limited to people who wish to play handicapped in the way set by devs. If we help them to get subscription for ingame labor, we attract more people into such disparity, from both sides. For more income, yes.

There will always be people willing to pay for you to harm your own project. No, it isn't intentional usually, these people just don't care, being used simply to pay for what they personally want. And sometimes it ruins the game experience.

If you really think you're handicapped if you don't spend money on tokens to trade for in-game items, then you're honestly just super bad at this game. And at that point, I don't think you really have a leg to stand on when it comes to arguing about what's good for the economy or not..

Not only this. Such a trade will become harder for some to use as well, thus reducing number of people involved.

No, it wouldn't. See my first response.

They can't do it "for their own gain". In this case devs get the money as well, because people still have to get that subscription/verification/etc. they are giving to other player.

Yes, if the devs were to remove tokens/ hats from being tradable then you would most certainly be selling these items for their own gain. I'm pretty sure people buying Q15 anvils for $10 USD via paypal is the very definition of "selling items for their own gain", as it cuts out the developers entirely. With tokens/hat being tradable, at least they get money for their effort in content creation instead of nothing in the other instance.

[Agrik]

No, adding more uses for tokens, or adding vouchers would not do this.

Adding uses for any thing rises its value. Usually relatively to other things. A very, very, very small increase maybe. But it attracts people who wanted this exact use but were a bit too lazy or busy for less convenient ways.

It's not going to change the price of the current market by any means by flooding it with RMT transactions.

It may or may not change the price, but will change amount of people involved. But growth of both supply and demand may leave prices the same.

The fact of the matter is that someone that's going to spend money for this type of stuff is going to and that's that. Someone who wasn't because it was too costly to do so isn't going to start because new items were added. Why would they spent $10 on a voucher now, when they wouldn't spend that same $10 for a token in the past to trade?

Maybe seller has no simple means to receive $$. Maybe buyer has bad reputation. What's the point to speculate? If there were no differences between PayPal and tokens, nobody would ask to change one for another. Thus I conclude differences exist, and tokens are somehow more convenient. It's better to ask those who asks for it: what it will change for them. Why they don't do now all the things they would want to.

If you really think you're handicapped if you don't spend money on tokens to trade for in-game items, then you're honestly just super bad at this game.

Maybe it's a wrong word, sorry for my English. I don't think I am, I think anyone who have to spend additional time to get ingame resources to trade for token is set back by this very fact.

And at that point, I don't think you really have a leg to stand on when it comes to arguing about what's good for the economy or not..

I prefer to use my head in arguing, not legs. And I argue about games, not about what is good for economy of trading pixel anvils for $10.

Yes, if the devs were to remove tokens/ hats from being tradable then you would most certainly be selling these items for their own gain. I'm pretty sure people buying Q15 anvils for $10 USD via paypal is the very definition of "selling items for their own gain", as it cuts out the developers entirely. With tokens/hat being tradable, at least they get money for their effort in content creation instead of nothing in the other instance.

Errr... trade via PayPal versus token trade is the difference in simplicity. PayPal has requirements and limitation, while token trade would be available to everyone in this game and his dog. In the case of token trade devs won't get these $10, they will get a small fraction in return for emitting the currency and providing operations of that exchange. Effectively they will get money exactly for making RMT more convenient and easy. Money for helping to damage their own gameplay.

[loleznub]

The fact of the matter is that someone that's going to spend money for this type of stuff is going to and that's that. Someone who wasn't because it was too costly to do so isn't going to start because new items were added.

[Agrik]

This contradicts with existence of people preferring such changes. Anyone who prefers one of two has his mind affected by the difference obviously, even if declares otherwise verbally.