Monetization boundaries and no pay-to-win policy

The recording presents monetization as a necessary part of sustaining Scars of Honor while repeatedly rejecting pay-to-win design. The central position is that the game must earn revenue through cosmetic and convenience purchases that do not grant combat power.

Core monetization principles

The stated goal is a sustainable but fair model. The game is described as free-to-play at release, with monetization intended to support continued development without selling direct gameplay advantage.

Paid early access is framed as acceptable only if it does not create lasting progression advantages. This is one reason a wipe at the end of early access is treated as important.

Cosmetic-focused revenue sources

Several monetization options are named as acceptable or under consideration:

• armor skins and other visual-only cosmetics
• mounts that are not faster than standard mounts
• cosmetic auras and similar visual markers for early supporters
• spell visual customization, such as changing the color or effects of abilities
• stash expansion
• appearance points for changing one item's look to another item's appearance
• battle passes, if they remain cosmetic and are accepted by the community

Armor cosmetics are described as modular rather than only full outfits, with piece-by-piece appearance changes planned.

Appearance points and transmog-style customization

Appearance points are described as a monetized way to transfer the look of one item onto another. This is presented as a visual customization feature rather than a power increase.

Stash space

Additional stash space is explicitly discussed as a monetization option. The recording distinguishes this from specialized premium tabs tied to exclusive item categories. The described version is simply more storage space, not a power system.

Battle pass stance

A battle pass is discussed as a possible system, but not as a certainty. Its inclusion is said to depend on whether it is accepted by the community and whether it provides meaningful revenue without introducing pay-to-win concerns.

The recording treats a cosmetic-only battle pass as potentially acceptable. Faster progression through the battle pass itself is not treated as pay-to-win if the rewards remain cosmetic.

What is rejected as pay-to-win

The recording explicitly rejects purchases that affect gameplay power. Potions sold for real money are given as an example of something considered pay-to-win, even if the advantage is smaller than buying gear directly.

The broader principle is that players should not be able to buy combat strength, progression advantage, or other power that affects fairness.

Early access rewards considered acceptable

Rewards considered fair for early access participants include cosmetics, unique visual effects, mounts with no speed advantage, and name reservation. These are treated as prestige or convenience rewards rather than competitive advantages.

Funding context

The project is said to have attempted Kickstarter previously and failed. The explanation given is that the game was not ready for that kind of campaign and that MMORPG crowdfunding had already developed a poor reputation because of failed or deceptive projects. Current funding is described as coming from private investment.

Revenue and long-term service

The recording links monetization directly to ongoing content production. The intended service model is a continuing exchange in which the game provides new content and players support development through non-pay-to-win purchases. This is tied to a broader goal of maintaining trust through openness about what is sold and why.

Source

• Recording: Playing MMoRPGs and Discussing Scars Of Honor Early Access
• YouTube: Watch on YouTube
• Published: Sunday, January 11, 2026 at 9:10 PM UTC