Making people pay Third Age Fragments for Solar Shards is a disgrace!

Not if it’s only available during Anniversary.

I will not. I will continue to fight against capitalist excesses and for players. Deal with it. If you can’t, you might like a game like Destiny 2. It’s very p2w

That’s still 30 days or $45. If you use exchange at the current rate of 196 MoF for 1 Aurum, that’s 882,000 MoF. Does anyone here want to spend almost 1 mil MoF on a museum item?

I think it’s more expensive to purchase a full gear in SWL than in destiny 2

They switched off the Auction House for the Event?
Huh, could’ve fooled me.
In any case, you’re pretty adamant in your position and I don’t think I will change your mind. I think you’re overreacting but that might just be me. (I actually don’t mind paying people for their work. Controversial, I know.)

Oh, it’s been stated that the Solar Shard will stay on the vendor even after the anniversary. It is permanent.

image

1 Like

That is about the worst answer I could imagine. Not only does it not clarify whether this particular shard is availabe via gameplay or not, it also produces a certain level of anxiety how the “price” will change - will the type of currency change ? will it become cheaper ? will it become more expensive ?

Terribad response @AndyB

In his defense, to be fair, his response came from a user asking if the shard will stay in after the event and nothing else.

My post addressed to OP was to show him evidence that the shard was staying in after the event, only.

How is he supposed to provide information that he doesn’t know?

Thanks for the info from Andy! It reduced my anxiety because I no longer feel like I have to rush and buy it right away.

There is also this snippet when I asked…giving me the impression that currently the vendor is the only source but that prize (in what currency needed and how much) and avaidability are open to change and that Andy isn’t informed of any imidiate changes. But given that we just got a few days more anniversary I take it that we don’t get a change to that denied or that what also is a popular theory get it in case that golden week happens (maybe, probably, who knows?)

It’s just a cheap tactic. Chuck it in the game discretely with an absurd price to a random vendor, hoping some people spend money to buy it. Leave a window to introduce elsewhere later on. Damage already done.

We’re not daft, we know they need money to keep this running. How they try to make that money is questionable. It’s unfortunate that they had a point in decision-making where somebody suggested to monetize museum progression and it went through. Unprecedented move to squeeze money out a system they hadn’t touched with microtransactions so far.

Until an alternative method for obtaining the Solar Shard is introduced: the final centerpiece upgrade, the minor damage boost that comes with it and the achievement for full museum completion are now locked behind opening enough caches. Well done.

2 Likes

On reddit it was calculated that only using caches to get to full red 70 would cost $10k

I paid for the special edition of SA AND I own a lifetime pass. I must be cheap

Not cheap. A bit in a hurry maybe since most arguments that it costs too much money you make are made less valid with the fact you can do it for free, it just takes longer.

This is an argument I see a lot and it’s more complicated than that. Anything that involves Aurum in this game is not free. There is no in-game Aurum generation. For Aurum to exist in the game, one player has to spend real money on it to generate it. For every player that wants to complete their Golem wing in the museum “for free”, there has to be roughly $90 worth of Aurum purchased by someone else in the system. From the perspective of Funcom, it doesn’t matter whether you do it “for free” or not. It hasn’t actually been for free.

4 Likes

True someone has to put money into the system, and while funcom don’t care who put said money into the system, from a single player perspective it can be done for free. It is also still a fact that they do need to make money somehow, then one can argue about where the money should come from.

It’s like saying that the arguments against the loot crates in Battlefront 2 are invalid because you can earn money through matches.

Have you seen all the cosmetics they have?

Less valid. Not invalid.
Also, I don’t remember Battlefront 2 being Free to Play. That’s also a factor that makes this comparison, at least in my eyes, not completely fair.
But at this point I feel we’re arguing semantics and personal opinions we won’t budge on. In the end it’s everyone’s own money/time to spend and they’re free to choose whether or not to do so and whether or not they like it.