• Announcements

    • XOOM

      Volunteer PHP Developer wanted to revive the Gazette!   07/24/2019

      We're looking to properly revive the World@War Gazette and need a solid PHP developer to help take some work forward. If you have some skills with PHP and are looking for some experience and to bring important home page news / recognition for individual players back to WWII Online, I'd like to hear from you! Submit an inquiry to jobs@corneredrats.com with some details about your experience. You will need at least 10+ hours per week to contribute to the team. The Gazette's current status can be found here: https://www.wwiionline.com/resources#gazette
formio

I dont understand

109 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, karecafree said:

the question:
how many players want or can afford $ 17.99 and
How many want or can they afford $ 5?

That's not the question - I'd wager 100% unity on the $5 winning your question.

The question is will ENOUGH people sub (and stay) at $5 to cover the loss in revenue from the change off of the current price point.  Because at the end of the day the operating costs still have to be paid or the game closes.  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, nc0gnet0 said:

 

Absolutely, as long as giving those up was a means to bringing parity (ie the axis would have to give things up as well)

The eastern front will never be modeled, were all kidding ourselves if we think that will happen, but it does bring up an interesting sub-point. The only reason the German tanks are what they are was they were designed to engage the KV-1 and T-34. With the omission of the eastern front (which is a complete joke in a ww2 sim) why does the Tiger and P4 even exist in game? For almost 20 years running now, we have a ww2 game that chooses to ignore the battlefield in which 70% of the war was fought. 

Not sure why your saying "go down the road of "balanced triads" you dig yourself into a hole you can't explain"....... My friend this ground was already breeched when the game was introduced with no eastern front. I have been saying all along, you can't half a$$ history. If you want to take a historical approach to the game (which I highly advise against), many many more factors have to be introduced other than just weapons and weapon models. War economics is a real thing. Over extending ones forces is a real thing. Each capture of an enemy territory comes at a cost, not just in lives and equipment lost, but costs of occupying the newly acquired territory. Furthermore, since in game the French don't have the Maginot line (in game), isn't it safe to assume that that money spent would have been spent on tanks an mobile ATG's as well? And before you reply how ineffective the line was (Germans drove around it) it at least gave a commander that had a clue (the French did not) on where the attack was most likely to come from). 

Which leads to another point-Strategic objectives and the cost if they are not met. The german war machine needed to secure oil, be if in Grozni or in North Africa, they did not. As such any historian will tell you that the war was really over by fall of 1941.  so if you want to explore this historical approach in game, this is a war of attrition, and all the allies really need to do is hold on until tier 1-1.5, and if they are not conquered, they have won the war. 

In essence, what I am saying is historical accuracy is not a road you want to go down, period. Because if you do, and you model it correctly, the Allies (not the axis) win every time. 

Dfire's approach to a red vs blue in a ww2 wrapper is about the best you can hope for. 

I'd like to think that we'll eventually get a broader part of the world going - Eastern Front, Africa, maybe parts of the pacific/East Asia.   The underlying framework for it is in place within the current engine (in game zoom all the way out to see what the 'Western Front' was hoped to eventually be, the original plan was to have multiple theaters).   Though it will take the allocation of a significant amount of resources to get it all working.    Then some of the missing pieces you mention can be modeled in.  After all how can you model the availability/non-availability of a resource if it's source point isn't even on the map to be influential (could always use exact history, but that pre-defines the outcome).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These days, I log into the game and see the Axis in a perpetual state of overpopulation. This happens at 4pm, 8pm, and 10pm my time (PST) during the week and whenever I log in over the weekend. 

I seldom go into the game beyond that because "What's the point?"

When I do, I join in the current attack/def wholeheartedly supporting HC. I do some cheerleading to try to keep momentum up and - on rare occasions - we prevail and

actually win a town. We backslap, WTG and pass around virtual high-fives. Yet, by parallel comparison - these days - such a scenario is historically closest to a bunch of

malaria ridden Americans and Filipinos taking a nipa hut on the Bataan peninsula. An hour later the town we took is back in the Axis hands along with 4 or 5 others

that we lost due to concentrating on one town with our meager numbers while the Axis has the numbers to mount substantial objectives anywhere they want. 

 

Even more de-motivating is to open the Online Map and absorb the stats. 

 

Honestly guys this isn't fun. 

 

I've been around in the game for a very long time. I was an original cross over from Air Warrior who joined the game on very nearly day one. I had some life issues that caused me 

to un-sub for a few years, then came back and have no plans to un-sub. I can afford the cost no problem. 

However, if someone like me is not having fun and not feeling motivated to log in, I can't imagine how  some twitch fingered whipper-snapper - who considers $15 bucks

a month for a full load out subscription as substantial scratch - feels if he is unfortunate enough to join the Allied side. 

 

I know there are those who will start the drumbeat cacophony that Allied lose because our leadership is this or that or we give up too soon, or we don't guard, or

we don't take FBs down, or we don't exploit Mattys, or our FMS strategy is bad, blah, blah, blah. 
 

The only time I see this game really pop is when the numbers are at or near parity. And then,  man, let the games begin!
 

This numbers thing is - IMO - something that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. I could give a rip about V1.36 because if there is sustained

near parity, the version we are at right now is just fine. 
 

My rant here isn't because I think I'm right. It's because I fear we will loose something that is very unique and highly valued. 

To lose this game would really suck.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, formio said:

Are you saying that you are fine with an almost empty server as long as the map is stable?? Or did I miss the point?

No, I'm saying that that's the majority opinion here. Look at how many people are ignoring what you said about getting player numbers higher at all costs, and are instead fretting about balance. They were complaining about side imbalance a decade ago when axis had 160 vs. the allies' 130 players, and now that it's 35 axis vs. 25 allies they are still complaining about side imbalance. 

 

Personally I agree with you that getting more players should be the #1 priority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, B2K said:

I'd like to think that we'll eventually get a broader part of the world going - Eastern Front, Africa, maybe parts of the pacific/East Asia.   The underlying framework for it is in place within the current engine (in game zoom all the way out to see what the 'Western Front' was hoped to eventually be, the original plan was to have multiple theaters).   Though it will take the allocation of a significant amount of resources to get it all working.    Then some of the missing pieces you mention can be modeled in.  After all how can you model the availability/non-availability of a resource if it's source point isn't even on the map to be influential (could always use exact history, but that pre-defines the outcome).

1) I'd like to think that we'll eventually get a broader part of the world going - Eastern Front, Africa, maybe parts of the pacific/East Asia.   The underlying framework for it is in place within the current engine (in game zoom all the way out to see what the 'Western Front' was hoped to eventually be, the original plan was to have multiple theaters).   Though it will take the allocation of a significant amount of resources to get it all working. 

It would be great, yes, but current enrollment numbers suggest Xoom is barely covering costs, if that. Which is why lowering the price is a terrible idea. You might get an initial surge, but they will disappear just as the Steam players did. Personally, I think in order for this game to survive, and possibly thrive, it needs to appeal to the Open source community. This is just the type of game that Linux users might gravitate too. I know there is a report floating about by one user that claims to have it running fine under Linux, I would like to see some more testing on this done, and if so promote the game to Linux users forums, etc, via how to's and what not on the front page. Targeting windows gamers that are addicted to eye candy is not a good use of tapping into the right market. 

2) After all how can you model the availability/non-availability of a resource if it's source point isn't even on the map to be influential (could always use exact history, but that pre-defines the outcome).

Quite honestly, there isn't a good way, which is why the "historic" model is such a bad idea. You want to add some realism to the game, make it so the tigers have to be refueled by opels. Have them break down and be unavailable to the spawn list for large periods of time (the allies could just spawn another tank). Because what good is a tiger if it is out of gas or sitting idle with a blown tranny? Not too mention that the lower costs, better fuel economy, easier maintenance of the allied tanks is not taken into account either. The allies could produce upwards of 6 shermans per one tiger, but that means nothing in game as the player base doesn't support that style of deployment, it actually is now faced with larger deployment numbers of Axis tanks due to the player base preferring to play axis. Historic modeling falls apart when the numbers don't line up. Allies made a good tactical decision, large numbers of smaller, faster, CHEAPER, easier to fix  tanks over smaller numbers of obese,  fuel guzzling, hard to fix, INSANELY EXPENSIVE, large tanks.

Simply adding more allied tanks to the spawn list isn't quite the same thing, as you never have the 3-4 on one engagement in the battle field and more often then not you just end up with a few tigers camping an army base or Fb.   

You want to know why the Allies didn't have big beasts of tanks like the axis did? It was a [censored] poor model based on economics. This is not a trivial matter, but a huge one. Do you think the US and it's allies were incapable of making larger more heavily armored tanks? 

If your going to keep on ignoring the economics, and the player base doesn't support the correct allied to axis force deployment, no amount of historic modeling will work, period. Sure the axis had blitzkreig and tier 0 advantage, and one can claim what we are seeing now is routed in realism, however, what never happens is the surge on the allied side post tier 0. Most of the allied player base has given up, disgusted. We don't see an over extended Germany forced now to fight a defensive battle because they are incapable of mounting any real offensive long range battles. We don't see the Axis forced to redeploy 60% of their forces to the Eastern front. We don't see the Germany infantry's effectiveness weakened because they haven't eaten in three days. Instead we get rambo LMG's unrealistically firing and clearing a depot cap firing from the hip. We see these same rambo Lmg's laying down, weapon deployed, and when a grenade is tossed in to the depot, they are miraculously able to un-deploy their weapon and run away before the grenade detonates. At the very least they should be forced to drop their weapon if they choose to move away. 

This game, in it's current state is a un-historic Western fantasy version of WW2. Any time someone makes a statement about historic this historic levels that, I SMDH. 

Edited by nc0gnet0
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dustyhc said:

However, if someone like me is not having fun and not feeling motivated to log in, I can't imagine how  some twitch fingered whipper-snapper - who considers $15 bucks

even vets who "play the game correctly" have gotten bored.

lumping us into a twich/shoebox shooter/teenageer class isn't helping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, major0noob said:

even vets who "play the game correctly" have gotten bored.

lumping us into a twich/shoebox shooter/teenageer class isn't helping.

LOL. Geez. I was really trying to be sympathetic to how the younger, quicker crowd raised on the "shoebox" games - who are brand new to WWII OL - must feel. Sorry you took that as an insult or slap.  

Edited by dustyhc
fix grammar
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

most of the people that left have played for at least 3 years, my squad's XO and a bunch of ranking members are gone.

there was some attrition from exhaustion, but the recent boredom has taken more in 6 months than in 3 years.

 

thing is, the greentags are getting it the worst. they've lost the guys we had to show us how to play, and have fun.

 

 

it is an insult, it's as ignorant as blaming "instant gratification" for squad ops declining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, major0noob said:

most of the people that left have played for at least 3 years, my squad's XO and a bunch of ranking members are gone.

there was some attrition from exhaustion, but the recent boredom has taken more in 6 months than in 3 years.

 

thing is, the greentags are getting it the worst. they've lost the guys we had to show us how to play, and have fun.

 

 

it is an insult, it's as ignorant as blaming "instant gratification" for squad ops declining.

I'm sorry, but I still don't see the insult. To paraphrase, all  I am saying that if seasoned players are getting frustrated then I feel for those who are brand new getting immersed into this lop-sided situation. If you want to be  insulted by that I can't help you friend. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, dustyhc said:

LOL. Geez. I was really trying to be sympathetic to how the younger, quicker crowd raised on the "shoebox" games - who are brand new to WWII OL - must feel. Sorry you took that as an insult or slap.  

Yeah. Its not an insult or slap, its reality. The Steam Launch and new/younger players reaction to the game was a dose of that reality. Its a lot of complex  jigsaw layers: 

Game: 

  • game and graphics old
  • as a pvp fps - very hard if not the hardest, with steep learning curve
  • subscription model old, expensive and not in favour in the gaming world currently,  AND / BUT: 

Money:  only a few ways or mix of ways to make money with content now 

  • subscription - ppl including young ppl pay for netflix, phones - why not games? cuz out of style and the truly young gamers have no regular $$$ ???
  • one time purchase - some games live on this but few 15+ year games 
  • purchase + DLCs and expansions - very common but requires large(ish) staff and ongoing capital 
  • ingame microtransactions: mixed in with the above 3 models for additional revenue

Mechanics: important but not (in the last few years) proven central to retention, or new players, new subs and/or $$$

  • depot vs area capture
  • balance and overpop
  • historical / ahistorical simulation
  • new toy introduction, audits and constant modification

One tends to think the really hard part is that there were and are no fps, pvp, mmo, big-map, persistent world, non-instanced games like this from which to draw analogies, experience or learning. (pace eve and planteside). 

So a conclusion to draw might be that after CRS 2.0 took over and started to evolve the game, along with various fundraising events (64 bit, new servers, etc) that the Steam Launch and 1.36 are (big) learning steps on the way to the inevitable path of some form of WWIIOL 2.0. Maybe a low cost $4-5 sub while the vets pay full price for a year test is worth the try. The game simply needs two things that are currently mutually opposed or at least chicken and egg:  more money and more players.

And as Groucho Marx once asked in the same situation:  'Will you marry me? And did your last husband leave you a lot of money? Answer the second question first." 

Related image     Image result for duck soup sidecar gif

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, dustyhc said:

I'm sorry, but I still don't see the insult. To paraphrase, all  I am saying that if seasoned players are getting frustrated then I feel for those who are brand new getting immersed into this lop-sided situation. If you want to be  insulted by that I can't help you friend. 

more upset at the straw manning

it's gotten bad enough here, even the DEV's are using it

 

22 minutes ago, sorella said:

Yeah. Its not an insult or slap, its reality.

pre-steam; a lot of people left, they were labeled as twitch a shooter crowd. they were just bored, boredom still gets excused when every AO's dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎16‎/‎02‎/‎2019 at 5:22 PM, forrest said:

Drop rates, and many current players will sub even more accounts for their friends/family to use.  I have multiple friends/family that will not pay $15/mo to play this game with me.  But they do play when I sub *for* them.  :) 

+1

Well +2 actually I have 2 kids!

 

S! Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, formio said:

I get the point. And I give CRS credit for being more transparent nowdays. Its a good thing.

But we had so many "soon" or "just wait until this and that" while months and years fly by and nothing really changes when it comes to numbers.

So why not try this one thing that maybe could change numbers positively right now? Are you really against that?

One thing I agree on is that a high number of players will generate more fun and that in turn will make the constant complaining disappear into the fun. Thats exactly what i was trying to say from the behinning.

If you are employing the "soon" argument it's really an empty argument. 

The current CRS has not really offered the "soon" deflection at all. Your statement is inaccurate in that regard. 

They have made various attempts at stabilizing and growing the numbers. 

Should they try others? Sure.

S!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2019 at 1:44 AM, formio said:

Can we agree on one thing, that what this game needs more than anything is loads of players? Not 20 players fighting 10 players on the other side.

Making changes to equipment, for example remove equipment or flip around equpment is not going to get new players into the game. It will only alienate remaining players when favourite units gets removed or moved around. It should always be 1 axis unit equals 1 allied and the performance must not be exactly the same.

A rifle is a rifle and a light tank is a light tank, period. 1 of this equals 1 on the other side.

What this game needs instead is a massive call to arms. Lowering subscription costs is the only way to start doing this. The fees are way too high. I want more friends and more enemies and I'm sure most feel the same way.

Everything else CRS has tried has not worked out. Even STEAM release didnt solve the problem.

For example, removing axis lmgs, dropping the numbers of mattys or adding new skins will not do anything to improve this game. Its a waste of time. I dont understand why even bother with balancing equipment.

Pls CRS, instead consider a DRAMATIC change in game fees. At least try for limited period of time. 1 player paying 18 dollars must be at least as good as 3 paying 6 dollars.

Also consider to make players buy visual stuff ingame. Not weapons though. No pay to win.

 

English is not my language so sorry for any errors.

There is a series of events involved with managing WWII Online, and it is not quite as simplistic as you make it out to be. I will agree with you that the root to increased fun and customer happiness is more players on the server. That is not purely price point driven, or at least one that is sustainable and achievable. For example, the primary beef for new users is the "Subscription." However as all of our veterans know the Subscriptions is the root reason we've made it for approaching 18 years of continued operations. If we did a one time buy totally, boom, game over.

3 players paying $6.00 a month is requiring 3x the effort for marketing and managing those players interests and "demands." There is no guarantees to their retention or interest in the product.

The $17.99/mo price point is only here out of necessity, and can possibly be replaced by lowering paying accounts to build up a base. However we cannot just go "Okay, we're changing the price point and boom here we go." That will create a financial vacuum creating instability for our continued operation. ~ I'm going to keep using that term, because that is our primary goal: continued operation of WWII Online.

We have some product plans that are currently in development, which are subscription based, at a lower price point, providing specific gear and access. I am waiting on our developers to push that through entirely before announcing much about it. I think it will be well received and customers should be happy with it, as it's more clear than a Starter account and not as expensive as a Premium account. These will be available for both organic and Steam customers. DLCs remain with Steam only and there's no plan to change that yet.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, major0noob said:

more upset at the straw manning

it's gotten bad enough here, even the DEV's are using it

pre-steam; a lot of people left, they were labeled as twitch a shooter crowd. they were just bored, boredom still gets excused when every AO's dead.

Yes it's not about being a twitch shooter and I game with plenty of others that are more than willing to spend several minutes setting a game or match up. I just logged on and there were just a few Luftwaffe pilots on in total. Didn't even spawn in I might as well just go join a BoS or DCS server as there are bigger air battles in less time. 

ifqdfr.jpg

This directly impacts the sub value. No point in paying a monthly sub to fly the better aircraft when the air war is inactive. It was a steep price back in I think 2010 when Doc raised it from $15 to $18 a month, but now? Very difficult to justify; maybe if there were Vliss/Knokke scrambles 24/7. I haven't even seen one of the notorious "conga lines" in years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, david06 said:

It was a steep price back in I think 2010 when Doc raised it from $15 to $18 a month

Just like to clarify
DOC did not do that, he did not even have to power to do that.
He maybe the one voted to become the whipping boy for it, make the announcement, take all the heat etc
but powers far beyond DOC made those category decisions, he just gets the blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, david06 said:

Yes it's not about being a twitch shooter and I game with plenty of others that are more than willing to spend several minutes setting a game or match up. I just logged on and there were just a few Luftwaffe pilots on in total. Didn't even spawn in I might as well just go join a BoS or DCS server as there are bigger air battles in less time. 

ifqdfr.jpg

This directly impacts the sub value. No point in paying a monthly sub to fly the better aircraft when the air war is inactive. It was a steep price back in I think 2010 when Doc raised it from $15 to $18 a month, but now? Very difficult to justify; maybe if there were Vliss/Knokke scrambles 24/7. I haven't even seen one of the notorious "conga lines" in years.

Well... sigh... Never mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, david06 said:

I just logged on and there were just a few Luftwaffe pilots on in total. Didn't even spawn in I might as well just go join a BoS or DCS server as there are bigger air battles in less time. 

If you dont spawn in, how exactly are there to be more LW pilots in the air?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Merlin51 said:

If you dont spawn in, how exactly are there to be more LW pilots in the air?

The real question is... what are you, CRS, doing to encourage more LW pilots to get in the air?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, XOOM said:

There is a series of events involved with managing WWII Online, and it is not quite as simplistic as you make it out to be. I will agree with you that the root to increased fun and customer happiness is more players on the server. That is not purely price point driven, or at least one that is sustainable and achievable. For example, the primary beef for new users is the "Subscription." However as all of our veterans know the Subscriptions is the root reason we've made it for approaching 18 years of continued operations. If we did a one time buy totally, boom, game over.

3 players paying $6.00 a month is requiring 3x the effort for marketing and managing those players interests and "demands." There is no guarantees to their retention or interest in the product.

The $17.99/mo price point is only here out of necessity, and can possibly be replaced by lowering paying accounts to build up a base. However we cannot just go "Okay, we're changing the price point and boom here we go." That will create a financial vacuum creating instability for our continued operation. ~ I'm going to keep using that term, because that is our primary goal: continued operation of WWII Online.

We have some product plans that are currently in development, which are subscription based, at a lower price point, providing specific gear and access. I am waiting on our developers to push that through entirely before announcing much about it. I think it will be well received and customers should be happy with it, as it's more clear than a Starter account and not as expensive as a Premium account. These will be available for both organic and Steam customers. DLCs remain with Steam only and there's no plan to change that yet.

Allright Xoom. I admit that I have no idea of what it takes to run the business and stuff like that, so what I say may sound simple. 

What if (as someone suggested) the current playerbase kept paying 18 dollars a month and the new/old players rejoining paid 5 dollars a month? Wouldn't that work in theory?

Getting back massive numbers must be prio 1?? Isn't it??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, formio said:

What if (as someone suggested) the current playerbase kept paying 18 dollars a month and the new/old players rejoining paid 5 dollars a month? Wouldn't that work in theory?

Lol no one (well ok maybe a few would,l but most likely no many) would stay subbed at the current rate if they knew they could subscribe at the reduced rate.  The majority would unsub to become an 'old' player then re-sub at that reduced rate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, B2K said:

Lol no one (well ok maybe a few would,l but most likely no many) would stay subbed at the current rate if they knew they could subscribe at the reduced rate.  The majority would unsub to become an 'old' player then re-sub at that reduced rate. 

Depends on how its done. You are very quick to laugh it off I think.

I think a simple poll could be a good start. At least ask the few remaining, they clearly have no problem paying 18 right now so maybe they can stick to that for 12 months or so. I myself would re-enter for 18 if it was part of a campaign to get massive numbers again and my name was put on display alongside all other contributers.

Why not at least ask?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, nc0gnet0 said:

Personally, I think in order for this game to survive, and possibly thrive, it needs to appeal to the Open source community. This is just the type of game that Linux users might gravitate too. I know there is a report floating about by one user that claims to have it running fine under Linux, I would like to see some more testing on this done, and if so promote the game to Linux users forums, etc, via how to's and what not on the front page. Targeting windows gamers that are addicted to eye candy is not a good use of tapping into the right market. 

I would be that user. I have an installer at https://lutris.net/games/world-war-ii-online/ that will work out of the box on any Linux system.

I (of course) tend to agree that there should be some level of promotion to Linux users. I believe a 'native' Linux client could be built with a reasonable effort input by compiling against winelib: https://wiki.winehq.org/Winelib_User's_Guide.

However, I think the benefit of such an approach is rapidly dwindling. At various times between 2007 and 2013 I advocated that this game could be a hit in the Linux community. At that time, the gaming options in Linux were Eve, a few ported Unreal engine titles, and a load of open source projects that were... meh. WWIIOL could have been a big fish in an (admittedly) small pond. Despite the small pond, I suspect that the type people who run Linux as their primary OS are are many times more likely to be the type of person who would *love* WWIIOL's gameplay (and less turned off by the graphics) than the general population who run Windows. 

However, in the last few years, gaming on Linux has advanced rapidly. In addition to more games coming with Linux support out of the box, projects like Steam's Proton have made it possible to run large swathes of people's older Steam games (including WWIIOL - see https://www.protondb.com/app/251950!) almost flawlessly. In the last few months, about 70% of the Windows games in my Steam library now run flawlessly under Linux. I think a significant opportunity was missed.

At this point, I think it would cost almost nothing to 'unofficially' support Linux by linking to the current installer or mentioning the steam support via Proton from the download page, and opening a matching 'Community Support' forum. It may not lead to a lot of subs, but the costs for opening that door are small. I'd be willing to help define the language and monitor the Linux community support forum.

I can say with 100% certainty that I am here and I have a sub because this game can run on Linux.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fcecd54e9b1a220934bc075ecf511ff2.png
https://gyazo.com/fcecd54e9b1a220934bc075ecf511ff2

5aff93fc7c3326cd8eb5b60375914ccd.png
https://gyazo.com/5aff93fc7c3326cd8eb5b60375914ccd

Reminder that the f2p is what drew people to this game, and other f2p games like E.V.E, OSRS, PS2, H&G all pull substantially more players being f2p while making more money.
Anyone who says the subscription is the only way is not telling the truth, and it hurts everyone when people don't see clearly enough to identify the problems.
It's time to let go of the past, stop trying to bring people back and start reaching out to new players, or admit you're not trying.

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, knucks said:

fcecd54e9b1a220934bc075ecf511ff2.png
https://gyazo.com/fcecd54e9b1a220934bc075ecf511ff2

5aff93fc7c3326cd8eb5b60375914ccd.png
https://gyazo.com/5aff93fc7c3326cd8eb5b60375914ccd

Reminder that the f2p is what drew people to this game, and other f2p games like E.V.E, OSRS, PS2, H&G all pull substantially more players being f2p while making more money.
Anyone who says the subscription is the only way is not telling the truth, and it hurts everyone when people don't see clearly enough to identify the problems.
It's time to let go of the past, stop trying to bring people back and start reaching out to new players, or admit you're not trying.

It's almost as if we should add some one time purchases.... or some form of DLC equipment package......

 

just FYI -- we're NOT locked into a subscription only mindset - as evidenced by the inclusion of DLC packages.   we ARE limited by what we can currently do within the game engine using the CURRENTLY AVAILABLE in-game models.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.