• Announcements

    • PITTPETE

      NEW Career Subscriptions now available   06/08/2019

      The all new highly anticipated / requested "Career Based Subscriptions" are available through www.WWIIONLINE.com/account only, starting at $9.99! There are three new subscriptions being added; 1) All Infantry at $9.99/mo, 2) All Air Forces at $9.99/mo, 3) All Ground Forces (Army Persona) at $12.99/mo. Continue reading to learn more and get back into the fight now! View the full article on battlegroundeurope.com
Mosizlak

Free to Play has to go.

187 posts in this topic

The amount of vets who claim they hate the game yet still play under a free to play account is comical. 

Make it a 1 week free to play, that's all. 

Pretty sure CRS will make more money in the long run, cause those C-words who claim they hate the game who use F2P accounts will resub...

Edited by Mosizlak
spelling
9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhm no.

FPA is great way for players to try game or keep playing if can't afford it.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, delems said:

Uhm no.

FPA is great way for players to try game or keep playing if can't afford it.

 

Ummm no. 

Count the amount of D-bags who used to be subscribers who use F2P now. 

Sorry, depot boy, F2P costs CRS money. 

PS: If new players cant figure out they want to sub within a week. they will never sub. 

Edited by Mosizlak
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would recommend as a first step .... reduce stats for FTP. Only allow them to view sortie detail. No aggregate, campaign, career stats viewable for their player name. Maybe also in-game, don't show the name of their killer in the after action report.

A couple little things that would nudge a few players back into the fold ..... i can certainly think of a few who this would likely sway.

6 people like this

Share this post


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

PS: If new players cant figure out they want to sub withing a week. they will never sub. 

Truth.

Thanks to the F2P option I was able to convince a friend to come play with me during the WBS event. It took only one night of playing to determine that they never wanted to play again. An unfortunate outcome, but it highlights what the F2P system allows. Remove it altogether and you'll have way fewer people trying the game because nobody wants to pay a monthly sub anymore, but at least they can find out if the game is worth playing. Leave it in unlimited and people will keep playing it forever because nobody wants to pay a monthly sub anymore.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad idea. BGE needs f2p if it ever wants to grow. Sub can only do so much, f2p and cosmetic microtransactions is what carries the torch these days. 

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, choad said:

I would recommend as a first step .... reduce stats for FTP. Only allow them to view sortie detail. No aggregate, campaign, career stats viewable for their player name. Maybe also in-game, don't show the name of their killer in the after action report.

A couple little things that would nudge a few players back into the fold ..... i can certainly think of a few who this would likely sway.

A this point stats don't mean much anyway so not a valid point. It's not like we get awards or medals to show off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bmw said:

A this point stats don't mean much anyway so not a valid point. It's not like we get awards or medals to show off.

I think you under-estimate just how much they mean to a lot of people. I dare say .... if stats were completely removed the game would bleed a good number of players. Maybe even collapse as we are not flush with subs these days.

I can understand that stats do absolutely zero for a good many players. I respect that. But i would say for an equal (likely greater) percent of players it is what keeps them coming back. To be the best <whatever> and have your enemies know your name, etc. 

I look at the names of some of the veteran FTP accounts and i can promise you that stats move the needle for them.

3 people like this

Share this post


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

I think you under-estimate just how much they mean to a lot of people. I dare say .... if stats were completely removed the game would bleed a good number of players. Maybe even collapse as we are not flush with subs these days.

I can understand that stats do absolutely zero for a good many players. I respect that. But i would say for an equal (likely greater) percent of players it is what keeps them coming back. To be the best <whatever> and have your enemies know your name, etc. 

I look at the names of some of the veteran FTP accounts and i can promise you that stats move the needle for them.

agree with this. if one made the game all stats only, with NO FTP STATS, subs would go up. publish weekly stats on the home page. publish daily stats for all categories, both sides, on loading pages. weekly ai generated medals for stats published on site, on loading pages. unlock units for stat achievements each tier or campaign. adapt ingame rank icons to show stat status instead of rank. let subscribing players earn Stats Points as kind of a 'Stats Loyalty Program' for use in micro-transactions or to buy DLC content. like that. 

Related image

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never looked at stats in this game, ever. Admittedly most of my play was over 10 years ago.

WBS came really close to getting me to resub, honestly. Since it ended, I find myself popping on every once in a while, so it still might get me to resub. My biggest issue is gameplay mechanics, and it seem like (as always) continuing development is entirely focused on new units, instead of replacing the worst aspect of the game, CQB/capture.

I always played for the rare moments when the game feels immersive for a few minutes (and hence I want gameplay improvements that make those more common, instead of incredibly rare).

I honestly can't even imagine caring about stats. If people really care about that, then there's not really any hope of getting rid of camping as a game requirement, since apparently there is a (large?) subset of people that thinks that racking up kills on people inside an AB to pad their stats is good gameplay. 

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All i will say is .... there are players who sub and never play but enjoy premium forum access. So it takes all kinds.

Anyhow, just an idea how to add more value to paying customers if the plan is to continue to allow FTP.

Edited by choad
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd add that one reason I keep playing FTP (and likely will for a little---I haven't been in game in years) is to check the numbers. I heard people saying numbers were up during WBS, but that might not be indicative of what it's like during other times. Low pop, and bad overpop for any one side makes for bad play in my experience (as with everything else, exacerbated by the current capture mechanics). So if I was to pay $15 (I'm convincing myself to resub for a while as I type more on the forums, the money is not really an issue for me), I'd be buying rage if it's usually whack-a-mole or spawning in within a minute of a call to defense to get killed by ei in the AB. That's really what I want to avoid, paying for rage, when I want to pay for immersion.

Edited by tater

Share this post


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

I think you under-estimate just how much they mean to a lot of people. I dare say .... if stats were completely removed the game would bleed a good number of players. Maybe even collapse as we are not flush with subs these days.

I can understand that stats do absolutely zero for a good many players. I respect that. But i would say for an equal (likely greater) percent of players it is what keeps them coming back. To be the best <whatever> and have your enemies know your name, etc. 

I look at the names of some of the veteran FTP accounts and i can promise you that stats move the needle for them.

The game IS in large measure about defeating other players in meaningful battle, rather then arena fragfest.  That other guy that seems to be where you are all the time thinks like you do about what is important in a battle, so it is sort of a weird relationship of competitors, and the message is being outdone at your mutually chosen priority.  AAR and stats are the Facebook of those relationships.  Hands off.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mosizlak said:

Ummm no. 

Count the amount of D-bags who used to be subscribers who use F2P now. 

Sorry, depot boy, F2P costs CRS money. 

PS: If new players cant figure out they want to sub within a week. they will never sub. 

Free accounts provide content for paying subs, they are working for their supper.  So I don't know that I buy this line of reasoning entirely.  No doubt there are losses for guys that would spawn rifle anyway under a sub, but not much else.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

Free accounts provide content for paying subs, they are working for their supper.  So I don't know that I buy this line of reasoning entirely.  No doubt there are losses for guys that would spawn rifle anyway under a sub, but not much else.

Yeah, don't the FTP people provide, well, targets, for the enemy? Since there is no AI to speak of, a critical mass of players is pretty much required.

I actually usually play a rifle, regardless (based on what I did during WBS). I don't want to waste supply (I figure there are people better than I am at different weapons), and the old game trained me that allied SMGs were entirely useless, so I tend to not use them (though at least the Thompson is decent now (I should add I've fired all but the French one in RL, and I don't rank them the way the game seems to in terms of accuracy)). Also, since most troops were riflemen, that is simply more immersive to me, and more importantly, I deeply hate CQB in the game (even though I tend to guard CPs to help the team, as much as I  hate it).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

Free accounts provide content for paying subs, they are working for their supper.  So I don't know that I buy this line of reasoning entirely.  No doubt there are losses for guys that would spawn rifle anyway under a sub, but not much else.

lol you argument is that we need targets? 

hahahahahahahaha

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mosizlak said:

lol you argument is that we need targets? 

hahahahahahahaha

Maybe you were on hiatus in the period before they instituted F2P, a lot of dead hours a lot worse then what you see even now.

 

So.  Ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, there's a game called EverQuest.  It is a subscription-based MMORPG that was very popular in the early 2000s.  The game is still running, but is a shadow of its former population due to changes in design and development.  

 

However, there is an emulator available which allows players to play the game for free, provided that people host their own servers.  The most popular server is Project 1999, which tries to recreate the classic EverQuest experience.  

 

Peak server populations on P1999 right now hover at around 1500.  The community is extraordinarily robust (if a little bit obsessive), and I believe there are two main reasons for that.  

 

One, they are offering a unique style of gaming that no one else currently offers.  Two, it's entirely free to play.  The people who run P1999 even have an agreement in place with the parent company of EverQuest that allows them to legally keep operating as long as nothing in the game is monetized.  

 

Part of me wonders how good this game could play with a completely free server and volunteer-only Dev team.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Maybe you were on hiatus in the period before they instituted F2P, a lot of dead hours a lot worse then what you see even now.

 

So.  Ya.

No, I wasn't away, and it wasn't worse than what we have now. 

Xoom just stated that they are at an all time monthly low for income.  You figure it out. 

So. No. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

No, I wasn't away, and it wasn't worse than what we have now. 

Xoom just stated that they are at an all time monthly low for income.  You figure it out. 

So. No. 

When/where did he state that? I kinda got that feeling based on comments made towards the subscription drive progress .... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Capco said:

So, there's a game called EverQuest.  It is a subscription-based MMORPG that was very popular in the early 2000s.  The game is still running, but is a shadow of its former population due to changes in design and development.  

I played EQ for a good many years, from it's release until they released EQ2 and everything began to go down the toilet.
In calling it a shadow, you are being quite kind, it is a terrible joke of it's former self.

I have seen project 1999, they do a very good job of trying to maintain and emulation of EQ at it's pinnacle.
In a way, i dont understand how SOE did not slap them with a C&D simply out of utter embarrassment, but i think SOE sold off EQ.

When the Verant branch owned EQ  it was a lot like here.
The verant devs would appear in person, in their forums, as well as in game.
That went away when Sony rolled Verant back under its main control and got rid of all the Verant guys.

But what they offer as EverQuest now (Retail, not p1999), makes even the end of days 2004/2005 period look like a dream.
Sure, it is free, but if you ever played it in it's heyday, or even watched old game videos of it, you would see that it is pretty much a joke.
A bad one.

1 hour ago, Capco said:

Part of me wonders how good this game could play with a completely free server and volunteer-only Dev team.  

Well, you are halfway there.
If you know an eccentric Howard Hughes type who wants to trust fund the maintenance operation and bandwidth for the host
and take care of a few small legal things, you could get the other half.

3 people like this

Share this post


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

When/where did he state that? I kinda got that feeling based on comments made towards the subscription drive progress .... 

Here: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

most of us just leave when we start to hate it

nearly all of my negative talk was while i was subbed. now that i've unsubbed, i stopped giving them my money, stopped playing the game, and only check forums every once in a while.

 

subbed again during "the hardest campaign ever", the rats are doing their best to ignore issues in game.

all this hate isn't a random quirk customers just do for no reason. there's some validity in every negitive review/opinion/post man. based on the pre/post WBS's low population, and steam reviews: continuing to ignore will only dig the game deeper into it's hole.

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Capco said:

So, there's a game called EverQuest.  It is a subscription-based MMORPG that was very popular in the early 2000s.  The game is still running, but is a shadow of its former population due to changes in design and development.  

 

However, there is an emulator available which allows players to play the game for free, provided that people host their own servers.  The most popular server is Project 1999, which tries to recreate the classic EverQuest experience.  

 

Peak server populations on P1999 right now hover at around 1500.  The community is extraordinarily robust (if a little bit obsessive), and I believe there are two main reasons for that.  

 

One, they are offering a unique style of gaming that no one else currently offers.  Two, it's entirely free to play.  The people who run P1999 even have an agreement in place with the parent company of EverQuest that allows them to legally keep operating as long as nothing in the game is monetized.  

 

Part of me wonders how good this game could play with a completely free server and volunteer-only Dev team.  

I’d be quite curious to see what WW2OL 1.+ would look like completely free and open to a publicly run volunteer team - Would still need some donations for server hosting. 

Edited by raptor34

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.