The best solution - if you didnt have skin you can use it but only as a promo, you cant repair it, cant duplicate, cant upgrade.
Moderate solution - you can loot anything, but cant wear it (only dismantle for recourses), but mounts should be sharable with clan members 100%.
1 Like
I see no reason for this exception.
Trust me, you won’t be able to use my German Shepherd after you or someone else killed me. 
2 Likes
As far as I am concerned. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I personally believe that this would be a really good way to handle this.
It wouldn’t solve everyone’s complaints, of course. People who are used to sharing everything with their clanmates or people on the server would still be dissatisfied with the new status quo, but it would improve several things. I’ll illustrate with a couple of example.
One example is being able to pass things you can’t use to a clanmate who can. Let’s say you have a clanmate A who is entitled to item X, but you aren’t. Let’s say there’s a player B online who is looking for a tempersmith, and you have a surplus tempersmith in a box, and they would be willing to trade you the item X for it. You know your clanmate can use X, but you can’t do this trade yourself.
The same thing applies in the similar scenario, where you killed a player entitled to item X. You can’t use it, but your clanmate can. Why not loot it and put it in their chest?
Speaking of putting things in a chest, if you can loot or trade for X, even without being able to use it, you could store it in a chest while you’re trying to decide if it’s worth buying or not. Eventually, you might decide to buy it and now you can use it.
Or if you don’t want to use X, hey, you could at least loot it or trade for it, and then carry it to your dismantling bench.
Are these examples things that are super important? No, they’re little things, but they’re gratifying, and they should help ease the frustration and avoid the ultimate breakage of suspension of disbelief that you get from not being able to even pick up an item.
So yeah, I think this solution would be sufficient.
As an aside, I believe there are ways to encourage purchase that would be even better. For example: reduce the durability of an item you’re not entitled to by 80% (i.e. leave it at 20% of its original durability) and make it impossible to repair. I still remember “shareware” games for DOS, and this idea seems to be in the same spirit – here, try this limited thing and decide if you want to buy it.
But those “better” solutions would be much more complicated to implement, that much I’m sure of. That’s why I think that this particular solution – change the entitlement check so it happens when you try to use the item – is good enough.
3 Likes
Since when we allowed to kill clan members?
I would even add one more.
If you die in PVP, you no longer have access to your mounts and buildings.
You are dead. Hardcore mode. 
(I 
D2HC)
But I guess that’s where most of the tough PVPers are out of the loop.
3 Likes
I don’t have anything to add to the subject so at the risk of being flagged: @SirBowen and @CodeMage I haven’t told either of you lately how much I LOVE you two. <3
6 Likes
As far as I know, when PVP is enabled on a server (not even building damage, merely PVP), you can deal damage to your clanmates and even kill them. There’s a server setting called “Friendly Fire Damage Multiplier” which controls how much damage you deal to your clanmates, but as far as I know, it’s not set to 0 on official servers, which means you are allowed to kill clan members just as much as you want 
2 Likes
Yeah probably. ^^ Doesn’t mean they’ll do anything for it though.
It is tradeable and lootable. IF you buy it. That’s how they benefit.
PvP players wanna keep their Loot Raider lifestyle in Conan, they gotta shell out for those Crom Coins.
Yes, bind on equip in a game where one can loot their fallen enemies in PvP.
Certainly industry standard.
It is a bad mechanic.
If they are going this route, just block all body looting and be done with it.
4 Likes
I’m looking at my Steam Friends right now as I type this and all of my PvP pals are off Conan. We do talk. One of them’s in the Air Force right now, living the life, for example. But nobody wants to come back to Conan, except for one, who’s so faithful I could just hug him. But then he’d drive up here from AZ and beat me up, just for being “tender.”
The distillation? It’s no longer welcoming.
Have you ever been over to somebody’s house and they seem to hold onto their good bourbon like it was top-end Aloe? And every time your glass sorta squidges off the coaster and leaves a slight smile on their glass table they stare at you like you’re a locust. They resent the smell of your coat as they put it in the closet and take it out. It’s unwelcoming. And you just stop going back.
I really like @CodeMage’s solution. It’s a great start, and feels more welcoming. And enticing, even to a sourpuss like me.
2 Likes
Maybe very NPC we kill is actually loaded with paid content but all we can see is the iron bars and berries 
What you’re basically saying here is that being able to loot and store anything is not only more immersive for players, but also good business. It would mean every object would be constantly advertising itself.
5 Likes
As the bazaar and battle pass items are only intended to be cosmetic then one solution to the problem could be that only players that own the cosmetic get the visual appearance applied to the items and everyone else gets the equivalent standard skin. This would be kind of like removing the illusion effect from an item and therefore gameplay would not be affected by the ‘you don’t own this item’ message.
Going to play devils advocate, as i care neither way on cosmetic dlc looting.
What about those of us who paid for the items and dont think others should get it for free from friends? We paid our money for the exclusivity of a cosmetic So what about those players and thier investment. We are paying to have something to show off that others dont.
If we wish to get into the nitty gritty, we have paid for the temporary permission to display something.
We did not buy it.
We bought the privilege of using it.
A privilege which may be revoked at any point for any or even no reason.
ToS is funny like that.
If the system had an exclusivity clause built in, such that there were only so many such permissions available, this one might have more sympathy. However there is no way, on the player side, of viewing whether a person has purchased a thing or not.
Also, when Funcom gives away these privileges, does it dilute the exclusivity of the previous purchase?
The issue this one sees with the exclusivity point is that these aren’t NFTs. They aren’t exclusive other than the time limit during which battle pass items are available. Bazaar items rotate.
Further, we run into the competition concept
Person A may purchase the right to make a thing, and make it only for themselves.
Does Person B purchasing the right to make a thing, and then choosing to sell or give that item away dilute the value of Person A’s acquisition?
Is it not the purchased privilege of Person B to do with the entitlement as they please?
If a system is in place promising exclusivity it might, but the current system is only barely in that category. Regardless of other… ahem… issue with how certain items are advertised. Touting their exclusivity does not seem to be front and center in the marketing strategy.
The Battle Pass has no expiration date this one can find and the Bazaar’s timers would be such a thing… except the beans were already spilled that the stock will eventually rotate back in.
This one isn’t Pooh Poohing the exclusivity argument as whole, just that it’s not front and center as marketed.
Now, when they offer a banner that says something to the effect of :
All you freeloaders are playing on the game I funded
Then this should definitely be cause for revisit.
1 Like
I’m going to play devil’s advocate to your devil’s advocate: what about those of us who bought the game and all the DLCs with the expectation that we will always be able to share with everyone?
I deliberately asked a ridiculous question like that, because I want to make a very important point: your expectations for what you paid for don’t matter, because Funcom can change how things work at any time, and they neither have any legal restrictions from doing so nor any obligation to give you your money back.
That’s what those of us who bought this game are dealing with right now, the shift in the policy that goes contrary to years of “tradition”, of expectations tacitly established and affirmed through practice.
Long story short: as @LostBrythunian pointed out, you didn’t buy anything, you gave Funcom money and they did something to your account that they can alter or even undo, at any moment without any repercussions.
People need to understand this harsh reality. The sooner they do, the better for everyone involved.
3 Likes
@Denversetti
Oh I thought this line of conversation was referred to as a thread.
I was agreeing with you.
Often when I speak people say what are you talking about like you did just now.
I posted similar concerns about the new monetization within the game in 2 other threads and each was closed by Devs within 16hrs and 24 hrs of my posts. Which is why I was taking such joy in the exploration this thread has taken. I will add that I originally bought this game on my xbox for solo play. I heard it played more smoothly on a PS4 so I bought one. After 6 months I found new experience in online gameplay.
I have thousands of hours in game, across PVP,PVE-C, and PVE. I am currently playing another series of games until FUNCOM/Tencent works the most recent bugs out.
But it always worth pointing out that Conan was sold with a solo game (option). The solo game unlike World of Warcraft, or Elden Ring Online, Neverwinter, etc, etc those are online exclusively, your stuff exists locally but is only playable on an external server. Solo games by there nature should exist on your machine.
Conan was sold with a certain level of ownership implied, continuity implied because of the solo play aspect. I’ve seen the point argued, already, but that is my take, I purchased multiple copies of this game over 2 consoles, and many of the DLCs over 2 consoles with the understanding I could play the game in solo, leave for 3 months, if I got busy, and like skyrim come back when I had time and carry on, maybe buy a new DLC etc… or time willing hop back online catch up with folks, online play requires much more commitment. That seems less likely with the new direction but time will tell.
Hopes this clarifies my earlier comments. I’m not disagreeing with anyone, just hopping in, reading and hopping out.
I love the fact people are talking about this. In this thread, topic, post, whatever you wish to call this dialog.
-Salud.
1 Like
So exclisivity means nothing then? So the preorder DLC should be allowed to show up as battle pass. Or is FC allowed to makw rules as they see fit. And if they are, then they can make bazaar items non lootable, because they can do as they please.
PS.
Also remeber the less they make on the new bazaar, the less money for free updates for the entire player base. So the people paying for bazaar items are actually the funders of the game going forward. So more share, less developement cash.
It means what Funcom decides to let it mean, for as long as they let it mean that. I can’t express my point any simpler or clearer than that.
If they decide to make the pre-order DLC available through the BP or BLB, there’s nothing you or I could do about it except complain on the forums.
Yes, they can. And the only thing we can do about it, apart from not spending any money on BLB, is complain about it on the forums
The point I’ve been trying to make is that your argument boils down to “I paid for this BLB item, and I think it should be non-lootable”, which is just as valid as my “I think it should be lootable”, because Funcom didn’t actually sell you an exclusive right to anything. It’s not stipulated anywhere, it’s just implemented like that in the code right now.
In other words, it’s not so much “playing the devil’s advocate” as it is “screw what you think, what about what I think?” 
Deja moo. I’ve seen that oversimplification already, so pardon me if I don’t spend an effort repeating my counterarguments from elsewhere.
Instead of repeating, I’ll just summarize: sharing does not automatically mean lower revenue.
1 Like
This one did not say that it means nothing.
Merely that it isn’t the primary marketing point.
Further, it’s not really exclusive, is it?
There is no vetting process, no weighing of the worthiness of the applicant, no scarcity.
In regards to the pre-order items, this is a solid point.
This one very very much would like them, especially with the illusion system now available.
However…
This one is generally opposed to bringing them back. They were marketed as a benefit to encourage early support. This was made clear at their time of inception.
To strip something of it’s already established exclusivity after the window of exclusivity closed, would be as duplicitous as adding exclusivity onto items that previously did not have them.
That said, the choice of whether to craft and then share them or not is part of the having of such a thing. Stripping someone of the ability to do so is diminishing the value of something they already acquire.
Retroactive changes are always messy like that.
As far as funding…
This one thinks that several steps have been omitted in how the actual financial functions of Tencent’s wholely owned subsidiaries work.
Also, based on the most recent included in cost of base game update (the game is not free), this one is extremely stingy. The game is still far from as stable as it was before 3.0 on the platforms this one plays on. If they updated in a functional way, it would be different. But at present, it smells like give us more money so we can push another bug buffet out. All of the shiny new features are immaterial if the game is not in a playable state.
They added sorcery. A quick jump to the PlayStation forum shows that this new feature is the surest way to crash the game on that platform. Ayesh.
This one has already paid more than $100 for this game (DLCs as well as base game). How much is a functional game supposed to cost?
2 Likes