Monetization model and pay-to-win boundaries

Scars of Honor is described as a free-to-play MMORPG that aims to avoid pay-to-win monetization. The stated model centers on cosmetics and other non-power purchases rather than selling character strength, faster progression, or exclusive gameplay advantages.

The discussion treats pay to win broadly. Paid early access, experience boosts, loot boosts, increased chances for better items, and similar progression accelerators are all framed as forms of unfair monetization. The same applies to purchases that grant gameplay advantages which cannot be reasonably earned through normal play.

Core monetization stance

The game is presented as pursuing a strict no-pay-to-win policy. Real-money purchases are not intended to provide power, stats, progression, or exclusive gameplay advantages. The stated goal is a model where revenue comes from optional purchases that do not affect competitive fairness.

Examples of monetization considered acceptable include cosmetics, emotes, titles, mounts, spell skins, animations, and similar appearance-focused items. Convenience is discussed more cautiously. Additional bag slots are mentioned as potentially acceptable only if such upgrades are also earnable in-game.

Items and practices rejected as pay to win

Several monetization practices are explicitly rejected or criticized:

• experience boosts and progression boosts
• loot boosts or higher chances for rare items
• premium effects that improve gathering yield, crop yield, or similar resource output
• starter packs or purchases that materially accelerate character growth
• loot boxes
• subscriptions that would undermine the free-to-play model

The discussion also treats paid access before other players as a form of advantage. A player entering the game months earlier is considered to gain progression, economy, and social advantages over later entrants.

Early access and fairness

A free early-access period for all players is presented as the fairest option. Two problems are identified with paid early access.

If characters are reset after paid early access, paying users may object to losing progress. If characters are not reset, later players may view the earlier access as pay to win because early entrants had time to level, organize, and establish an advantage.

For that reason, the preferred direction is early access without a paywall.

Battle passes and FOMO

Battle passes are discussed as less harmful than loot boxes, but only under strict conditions. A battle pass is considered potentially acceptable if it contains no pay-to-win benefits and avoids fear-of-missing-out pressure. Time-limited passes are criticized for making the game feel like an obligation rather than entertainment.

A more acceptable version is described as a pass that remains available once purchased, allowing players to complete it at their own pace. Even so, the discussion remains cautious about how such a system would fit the game's broader fairness goals.

Appearance points and transmogrification-style monetization

One proposed monetization feature is the sale of appearance points. These points would be used to change the visual appearance of equipped items without changing their stats. The idea is presented as a fair revenue source because it affects presentation rather than combat effectiveness.

This is framed as part of a broader effort to find sustainable monetization methods after ruling out pay-to-win systems.

Content cadence as part of the value exchange

The intended service model pairs monetization with regular content updates. Major releases are described as a target every three to four months. Each release would add new gameplay content such as dungeons, quests, or mechanics alongside new cosmetic offerings in the shop.

This is presented as a fair exchange: players receive new content, and the studio offers optional cosmetic purchases at the same time.

Cosmetic preferences and testing plans

Cosmetic armor appears to be favored over mounts in a hypothetical purchase choice discussed during the recording. The studio also plans a beta-period monetization test in which players receive free shop currency and choose what to spend it on. The purpose is to learn whether players are more interested in mounts, armor skins, or other cosmetic categories.

Comparisons with other games

Other games are used mainly as contrast cases. Albion Online is criticized for premium benefits such as increased gathering yield, loot, and other progression-related bonuses, which are treated as pay to win. Warframe is discussed more uncertainly, with the main conclusion being that monetization models from primarily PvE games do not transfer cleanly to a PvP-capable MMORPG.

Path of Exile is referenced more positively as an example of a studio-community relationship built around ongoing content and optional purchases rather than direct power sales.

Source

• Recording: Monetization in Scars OF Honor, Pay to Win ????
• YouTube: Watch on YouTube
• Published: Sunday, January 18, 2026 at 8:30 PM UTC