Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

ZEBBEEE

(Poll) F2P vs Premium

Premium vs F2P  

31 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

jwilly
Quote

Would an approach focused on teamplay or on other gameplay constraints result in a significant conversion rate?

Basic MBA stuff:

If you want to effectively encourage (or discourage) a behavior, you first must have a measure of that behavior.

***

1. What means might be developable, ideally using as much existing code as possible, to quantity an individual's teamplay performance?

2. It must be acknowledged that the game design currently includes multiple weapons that historically required team operation, but are modeled in-game as one-player. (All of the RPATs, all mortars, some of the LMGs, plus most items heavier than infantry.) Game design that encourages Rambo gameplay in this way isn't consistent with a stated goal of encouraging teamplay.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall

Dre, the priority remains getting new players into voice comms.  I dunno what to say. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
foe2
54 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

Dre, the priority remains getting new players into voice comms.  I dunno what to say. 

the new sever for discord should certainly streamline the process and make it easier for new players to get on voice coms 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21
3 hours ago, Kilemall said:

Dre, the priority remains getting new players into voice comms.  I dunno what to say. 

Well I won't be on voice comms, it's not regulated, no comms  discipline , I would just get pissed trying to listen for Tank audio and have to listen to someone explain what he had for dinner . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quincannon

I

13 hours ago, ZEBBEEE said:

We are currently giving 30 days premium but its effect on conversion is limited. Which could be explained by a frustration regarding an initial experience, and a difficulty to find action with lots of coordinating players. 

Those playing for free on a regular basis love the concept and know how to play, but just cannot afford any expense. I agree with what blakey said but on a yearly basis it is a big budget indeed.

We tried to remove free play but the resulting population drop also dropped the premium population. 

People attract people. Until graphics and gameplay can be improved, we can still think about the pricing model to boost population. 

From the first feedbacks, which I all thank you for, I am surprised that little agree with the current model focused on unit strength and load-out. Would an approach focused on teamplay or on other gameplay constraints result in a significant conversion rate? Good question. 

I don't DISLIKE the concept of a more versatile loadout. It could make for more interesting gameplay. But I don't see it as something that would make folks shell out and sub up.

I talked to a friend of mine who, like me, has played a LOT of F2P and sub model games. I described the model to him and he looked at the sub packages. He has tried the game about 6-7 years ago, and didn't have a great experience. He said that he could see a few problems with our setup (besides the graphics and gameplay concerns):

1.  Players who play F2P will feel like the game is Pay to Win. If you pay, you get all the toys. That gives a game a bad rep with a lot of gamers.

2. It's not easy to communicate. The game has no in game comms.

3. Many new people start a game with 1 or 2 friends, and want to start their own group. Most games that used to require 5 or 10 people to start a group lowered it to 1 or 2.  That makes it harder to start a Squad with a buddy in our game.

4. There is no incentive to spend money once you have a subscription. Sure, Hero gives the  NCO and Ammo bearer, but that's about it.

5. The game does not advertise much. Other than Steam, our digital footprint is miniscule.

6. The 30 day free access trial doesn't necessarily help a new player, because the learning curve is HIGH, and the player doesn't know how to use the units (especially vehicles, with our unique design). He feels that new players tend to die so much that they spend the trial just trying to figure out how the game works... By the time they realize what they should do with the units, and how they work... they lose access; which causes a lot of frustration.

7. Many games have ways to personalize your  character, and folks will tend to pay for that.



This led us to discuss potential solutions that folks would like and might help.

1. ADVERTISE! People can't play if they don't know the game exists... and they need a reason to come play it when they DO. Create a basic package on Steam that people can buy, or use the ones that exist... Now send some free Steam keys for them out to the F2P MMO sites. Those sites will give us FREE advertising if we do. I can't tell you how many times that I have signed up to sites like Alienware Arena, or FreeMMOStation. I get emails from them all the time, saying they have drawings for Free stuff... If CRS gave out a few Steam Keys to packages a Quarter... it would get our name out there. And if I get a free package for a Free MMO, I go and check it out and play with it... and if I have fun I tell my friends. In some cases, I had stopped playing a game when I got a free item and I started playing again because of it. This would cost the company very little, but the free advertising could really help make a lot more gamers aware of the game.

2. Personalization. This is something that I suggested a long time ago, but I believe it could be well worth it. In many MMOs, people get bored with what they have and they want something to make the"same old" fresher.

Consider the concept of Personalized uniforms. We have had folks on the forums ask about Canadian units. We have had folks suggest Naval Uniforms. CRS has changed the map to add winter... What about winter uniforms? Yes, this would require a couple of dedicated people, but what if we add a new uniform a couple of times a year?  It wouldn't require new weapons. It wouldn't require new  Brigades.
Ideas:
US/ French/ Brit/  Naval uniforms
Kriegsmarine uniforms
Summer uniforms
German greatcoat uniforms
Polish uniforms
Canadian uniforms
Australian uniforms
Romanian uniforms
Winter uniforms
Camouflage uniforms
Squad insignia on helmets
Sniper "Gilly" uniforms

Make the uniforms available to all Premium subscribers and purchasable by F2P players.

4. Also on the personalization scale.... And I know folks who have a wishlist will not like this,,, but consider it from a make money and get new players standpoint before you condemn it. NEW Factional units. Infantry, weapons and vehicles.

Some folks don't want to play Brit, German, and French all the time. Sure, they are the main bread and butter, but they are all  well presented. But again, we have folks who want more options. Anyone remember how much attention the introduction of the Italians received? New units mean renewed interest from folks who want to try them out, and more interest from new folks who can only find these factions in our game.  ( I remember looking through Steam for WWII games and finding a thread from one guy who had spent years trying to find a shooter type WWII game where he could play Italians. He seemed pretty thrilled when I told him our game has that option) These could be offered to all subscribers or be purchasable by the unit or faction...

Potential Options

Polish
Hungarian
Italian
Romanian
Belgian
The Netherlands

5. Elite Units only available to subscribers.  Commandoes... Vehicle variants with slightly upgraded weapons...

6. Subscription only Leadership: Only allow Subscribers to create Missions. This would help ensure that new players  and F2P players can spawn... but only on missions created by more experienced players. At least that's the concept. This doesn't limit the F2P experience, and allows them to play just about everything they have access to... but it prevents brand new guys from spawning missions in the middle of nowhere, or in empty towns. It also ensures that sub and F2P players will be on the same missions. Once F2P members learn the ropes, if they want to be able to create missions, this would be an impetus to sub up.

6. Make Squad creation easy, but require that Squad leaders be subscribed. Allow the creation of squads with only 2-3 players. This will let those folks who bring their buddy in and want to create a Squad the ability to do so... Once they have the Squad tools, they then have the ability to invite more people when they meet them. New Squads can grow organically, without requiring the formation of 5 man teams in a game where finding other like minded players can be hard. Being able to add a new friend to your team and know when they are on would be great.

We want F2P to have a great experience. So great that they don't feel like they don\t stand a chance against subscribers, while at the same time, making subbing be worth it. Other games let you have access to certain options only whole subbed. Some sell you races and classes, as well as personalization options. There can be a reasonable amount of subscription locked features before the game reaches the point of really being a Pay to Win game. We need to find that happy medium with enough benefits to Subbing to make it desirable.




 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus

Don’t mind if the micro transactions apply to ftp just as long as they are limited. Like $10 bucks gives you a certain period of time that you can access t1/2/3 tanks or inf or planes. Subject to supply availability. The micro transactions should never be cheaper than a months premium subscription if they purchase the temp upgrade. 

that’s the rough. IMHO the easy way, the messy way, the way you come up with conflict between subscription vrs pay to access ppl. Though not sure it’s a bad thing. However I don’t see the hook.

You want them to hang around, get your hooks in.

IMHO, there should only be ONE way.

its the ability to rank up. 

the premium subscription is what $20/month? (I know it differs) 

So you offer for say $6 bucks for rank points. That lasts for a week or so. They can access those points every time they pay for the earned rank points.  (Mb offer 1.5x rank bonus - don’t know). Thier account tracks the rank points. That way they actually earn rank. Earn access. Your micro transact the ability to access the points. Divide it up as you will, inf units or armor/air/navy.... Et al. 
As they pay to earn rank points and get to the next offering of cool crap they can spawn... if it lasts and they subscribe premium they keep that rank with all access.

 

So how is this beneficial? That is the two part question. Beneficial has to be for the company and consumer right? That’s the marketing.... ppl. 
 

Economy. What is the state of the economy and how can we meet consumers half way? They have to feel safe with this game, and regardless, this is not a purchased game, it’s an investment. Do not kid yourselves.  Not everyone can fork out $20/month.... but mb they can $15/$10/$5 a month. They psychological goal IS the investment!!!!!


A guy who pays what ever it is for basic kit.... will only do so for a short period of time. CRS then puts out offers.... “This week ALL ACCESS”. That’s the “hook” ? No it is not a hook! It’s a whoopee moment. The guy then just continued paying basic, they retain NOTHING for thier investment.... and gets whoopee every once and a while or during intermission then gets bored and leaves.
 

The investment. This games hook centers around “time”. Time equals achievement and rank, achievement equals satisfaction. The noobs satisfaction goal is better equipment. That takes time. Time means experience (rank points) ... the hook is that it is earned. If they can only afford $5 a month, they build and keep capital. However they can only access that capital when they pay. But, be kind and understanding, allow them the basic free..... between affordability as ftp. Soon as they pay... boom Firefly/tiger. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blggles

I always liked the idea of FTP being able to trade rank points for a vehicle, then they gotta earn what they spawn, and they might be keen on playing in a careful and meaningful way when they've got their eye on that tiger. Might also be nice if they could spawn a unit for as long as they don't die in it. That'd be the difference, paying players only have to earn it once, FTP have to go back to the grindstone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

earn what they spawn

Or, recognizing that all other significantly competing games have a monetization method for "F2P", CRS could use purchase of point-packs as their way of monetizing "F2P". Play would still be possible with no points source other than game earnings and a small weekly points provision, but it'd be more fun to play with more points available.

Fundamentally, CRS needs to increase its cash income, so as to pay for greater development costs, i.e. staff and tools. So monetization is critical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE

A Points-based system could be extremely unfair. Think of all these situations where you would have angry players when points were lost because of a camper, a bug, a network issue...

WWIIOnline converts mostly players that experimented a team/squad based experience and/or massive battles. 

So I would personally have been interested  to see a system where each online premium player can somehow 'grant' premium material to one f2p at a time, as long as they are on the same mission. With a reset at every new game session.

So a free player would access premium units as long as his sponsor is also on that mission. This would require preliminary communication, preparation and coordination, filtering players and boosting up squads. Boosting teamplay indirectly improves overall retention and thus conversion.

This could remove the pay to win, as it would become more 'team to win'. It indirectly answers the question of what to give to the remaining f2p, as the answer would then be 'nothing more'

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

IMO, any discussion of how to change the game's systems that does not include a monetization solution is a waste of time. 

Quote

A Points-based system could be extremely unfair. Think of all these situations where you would have angry players when points were lost because of a camper, a bug, a network issue...

Old CRS...Gophur in particular...did not express concern about unfairness. The Old CRS concern expressed in those discussions was how to design a monetization solution that could be coded with the available resources. Old CRS was very clear about the end result of not finding a way to increase revenue...as is Xoom, I'm sure.

I don't see how "fairness" would be any more of an issue for F2P customers who are impacted by camping, bugs or network issues than for subscribing customers who are similarly impacted. 

A means of monetization is essential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE


@jwilly imho Monetization is probably not doable for a game that has so many constraints, both technically, historically and gameplay-wise. Furthermore multiple analysts suggest that subscriptions will remain the best revenue model. Eventually shared ones like google stadia and such.

 

Another business model theory, that cannot be benchmarked nor simulated however, and considering the ageing engine and gameplay, would be to give all infantry access to free play. No guns, no trucks, no tanks.

The resulting increase of infantries could make the tank and air games more appealing, thus in turn the support units as well. 

combined with a-la-carte subs that unlocks extra premium content per branch:

- all guns and trucks [all variants]

- All tanks

- All aircraft and ships

Purely fictional thoughts here

Share this post


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


@jwilly imho Monetization is probably not doable for a game that has so many constraints, both technically, historically and gameplay-wise. Furthermore multiple analysts suggest that subscriptions will remain the best revenue model. Eventually shared ones like google stadia and such.

 

Another business model theory, that cannot be benchmarked nor simulated however, and considering the ageing engine and gameplay, would be to give all infantry access to free play. No guns, no trucks, no tanks.

The resulting increase of infantries could make the tank and air games more appealing, thus in turn the support units as well. 

combined with a-la-carte subs that unlocks extra premium content per branch:

- all guns and trucks [all variants]

- All tanks

- All aircraft and ships

Purely fictional thoughts here

Some good ideas!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
On 10/13/2020 at 4:43 AM, stankyus said:

Don’t mind if the micro transactions apply to ftp just as long as they are limited. Like $10 bucks gives you a certain period of time that you can access t1/2/3 tanks or inf or planes. Subject to supply availability. The micro transactions should never be cheaper than a months premium subscription if they purchase the temp upgrade. 

that’s the rough. IMHO the easy way, the messy way, the way you come up with conflict between subscription vrs pay to access ppl. Though not sure it’s a bad thing. However I don’t see the hook.

You want them to hang around, get your hooks in.

IMHO, there should only be ONE way.

its the ability to rank up. 

the premium subscription is what $20/month? (I know it differs) 

So you offer for say $6 bucks for rank points. That lasts for a week or so. They can access those points every time they pay for the earned rank points.  (Mb offer 1.5x rank bonus - don’t know). Thier account tracks the rank points. That way they actually earn rank. Earn access. Your micro transact the ability to access the points. Divide it up as you will, inf units or armor/air/navy.... Et al. 
As they pay to earn rank points and get to the next offering of cool crap they can spawn... if it lasts and they subscribe premium they keep that rank with all access.

 

So how is this beneficial? That is the two part question. Beneficial has to be for the company and consumer right? That’s the marketing.... ppl. 
 

Economy. What is the state of the economy and how can we meet consumers half way? They have to feel safe with this game, and regardless, this is not a purchased game, it’s an investment. Do not kid yourselves.  Not everyone can fork out $20/month.... but mb they can $15/$10/$5 a month. They psychological goal IS the investment!!!!!


A guy who pays what ever it is for basic kit.... will only do so for a short period of time. CRS then puts out offers.... “This week ALL ACCESS”. That’s the “hook” ? No it is not a hook! It’s a whoopee moment. The guy then just continued paying basic, they retain NOTHING for thier investment.... and gets whoopee every once and a while or during intermission then gets bored and leaves.
 

The investment. This games hook centers around “time”. Time equals achievement and rank, achievement equals satisfaction. The noobs satisfaction goal is better equipment. That takes time. Time means experience (rank points) ... the hook is that it is earned. If they can only afford $5 a month, they build and keep capital. However they can only access that capital when they pay. But, be kind and understanding, allow them the basic free..... between affordability as ftp. Soon as they pay... boom Firefly/tiger. 

LOL vague memory of posting this.

I should have said...

"Bed, sorry"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blakeh
On 10/12/2020 at 8:46 PM, Quincannon said:

I

I don't DISLIKE the concept of a more versatile loadout. It could make for more interesting gameplay. But I don't see it as something that would make folks shell out and sub up.

I talked to a friend of mine who, like me, has played a LOT of F2P and sub model games. I described the model to him and he looked at the sub packages. He has tried the game about 6-7 years ago, and didn't have a great experience. He said that he could see a few problems with our setup (besides the graphics and gameplay concerns):

1.  Players who play F2P will feel like the game is Pay to Win. If you pay, you get all the toys. That gives a game a bad rep with a lot of gamers.

2. It's not easy to communicate. The game has no in game comms.

3. Many new people start a game with 1 or 2 friends, and want to start their own group. Most games that used to require 5 or 10 people to start a group lowered it to 1 or 2.  That makes it harder to start a Squad with a buddy in our game.

4. There is no incentive to spend money once you have a subscription. Sure, Hero gives the  NCO and Ammo bearer, but that's about it.

5. The game does not advertise much. Other than Steam, our digital footprint is miniscule.

6. The 30 day free access trial doesn't necessarily help a new player, because the learning curve is HIGH, and the player doesn't know how to use the units (especially vehicles, with our unique design). He feels that new players tend to die so much that they spend the trial just trying to figure out how the game works... By the time they realize what they should do with the units, and how they work... they lose access; which causes a lot of frustration.

7. Many games have ways to personalize your  character, and folks will tend to pay for that.



This led us to discuss potential solutions that folks would like and might help.

1. ADVERTISE! People can't play if they don't know the game exists... and they need a reason to come play it when they DO. Create a basic package on Steam that people can buy, or use the ones that exist... Now send some free Steam keys for them out to the F2P MMO sites. Those sites will give us FREE advertising if we do. I can't tell you how many times that I have signed up to sites like Alienware Arena, or FreeMMOStation. I get emails from them all the time, saying they have drawings for Free stuff... If CRS gave out a few Steam Keys to packages a Quarter... it would get our name out there. And if I get a free package for a Free MMO, I go and check it out and play with it... and if I have fun I tell my friends. In some cases, I had stopped playing a game when I got a free item and I started playing again because of it. This would cost the company very little, but the free advertising could really help make a lot more gamers aware of the game.

2. Personalization. This is something that I suggested a long time ago, but I believe it could be well worth it. In many MMOs, people get bored with what they have and they want something to make the"same old" fresher.

Consider the concept of Personalized uniforms. We have had folks on the forums ask about Canadian units. We have had folks suggest Naval Uniforms. CRS has changed the map to add winter... What about winter uniforms? Yes, this would require a couple of dedicated people, but what if we add a new uniform a couple of times a year?  It wouldn't require new weapons. It wouldn't require new  Brigades.
Ideas:
US/ French/ Brit/  Naval uniforms
Kriegsmarine uniforms
Summer uniforms
German greatcoat uniforms
Polish uniforms
Canadian uniforms
Australian uniforms
Romanian uniforms
Winter uniforms
Camouflage uniforms
Squad insignia on helmets
Sniper "Gilly" uniforms

Make the uniforms available to all Premium subscribers and purchasable by F2P players.

4. Also on the personalization scale.... And I know folks who have a wishlist will not like this,,, but consider it from a make money and get new players standpoint before you condemn it. NEW Factional units. Infantry, weapons and vehicles.

Some folks don't want to play Brit, German, and French all the time. Sure, they are the main bread and butter, but they are all  well presented. But again, we have folks who want more options. Anyone remember how much attention the introduction of the Italians received? New units mean renewed interest from folks who want to try them out, and more interest from new folks who can only find these factions in our game.  ( I remember looking through Steam for WWII games and finding a thread from one guy who had spent years trying to find a shooter type WWII game where he could play Italians. He seemed pretty thrilled when I told him our game has that option) These could be offered to all subscribers or be purchasable by the unit or faction...

Potential Options

Polish
Hungarian
Italian
Romanian
Belgian
The Netherlands

5. Elite Units only available to subscribers.  Commandoes... Vehicle variants with slightly upgraded weapons...

6. Subscription only Leadership: Only allow Subscribers to create Missions. This would help ensure that new players  and F2P players can spawn... but only on missions created by more experienced players. At least that's the concept. This doesn't limit the F2P experience, and allows them to play just about everything they have access to... but it prevents brand new guys from spawning missions in the middle of nowhere, or in empty towns. It also ensures that sub and F2P players will be on the same missions. Once F2P members learn the ropes, if they want to be able to create missions, this would be an impetus to sub up.

6. Make Squad creation easy, but require that Squad leaders be subscribed. Allow the creation of squads with only 2-3 players. This will let those folks who bring their buddy in and want to create a Squad the ability to do so... Once they have the Squad tools, they then have the ability to invite more people when they meet them. New Squads can grow organically, without requiring the formation of 5 man teams in a game where finding other like minded players can be hard. Being able to add a new friend to your team and know when they are on would be great.

We want F2P to have a great experience. So great that they don't feel like they don\t stand a chance against subscribers, while at the same time, making subbing be worth it. Other games let you have access to certain options only whole subbed. Some sell you races and classes, as well as personalization options. There can be a reasonable amount of subscription locked features before the game reaches the point of really being a Pay to Win game. We need to find that happy medium with enough benefits to Subbing to make it desirable.




 

A lot of good ideas in there.

For advertising, at one time web sites used to trade having links to each other's web site hoping to draw upon each other's base.  I don't know if this is still done or not but it might be worth trying to trade links with sites that specialize in war history- ww2 in particular.

I came into this game not as a gamer but as a WW2 history buff.  I just happened to find a link to it without actually looking for a game and liked what i found.  I could live my interest instead of just reading about it.  I suspect there are plenty of non-gamers out there who might be open to this game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

Not really interested in the Barbie dress up ideas, who cares?

Bottom line is that F2P serves a couple possible functions.

1. It is a chance to try the game, and maybe stay as a sub. The mechanism here is value for money (maybe cheaper subs, if it attracts more people?), and just not sucking. There are many gameplay elements that probably leave an awful taste in people's mouths. My son laughed pretty hard at a few things in the game, but once playing, we've had some fun, but he rages when he shoots someone twice, then they shoot him, then both die.

2. It serves to pad the game with needed bodies. Even with noobs, play is better with more people. The game requires a certain critical mass of players to be interesting on either side. This function is independent of revenue in some ways, it's effectively "AI" that is actually intelligent, and on top of that, free. This can actually feed back to #1 if the gsameplay improves with more F2Ps, then it looks more attractive, etc.

So, the goals need to be to flip some of the #1 people to paid subs, and to leverage the use of F2P players as, well, "AI."

What can be done? 1 has been discussed a lot, and to be honest it's a long pole. The play needs to be substantially more compelling and less frustrating to convert a lot of them I would bet. It needs to pick SOMETHING to be truly excellent at. It ain't terrain/graphics. It is going to have to be gameplay, and IMHO, pegged more to some sense of realism in outcomes (meaning RL expectations about how battles were fought and won should work, not Quake expectations).

#2 I think has some room to improve, and maybe is easier to start with. What about some instant action F2P mechanism that is literally taking the place of AI as a start? A F2P "instant action" button that places the player in the place of a MG, ATG, AAA in an area where the enemy certainly is. "Enemy approaching!" Maybe the AI is messed with to make sure the lines of fire make sense, and maybe less about the dumb tower AI, and more about more realistically placed AI on the ground (so they don't spawn in and get sniped by an ATG from kms away before they can shoot). Join in flight has been asked for, and I have no idea if it is possible, but an "instant action" way to get people aboard for crew/gunners is attractive as well in the "leverage something given away free" sense. Suggest bot gunners on planes (which should always have been a thing, all guns manned, all the time), and people whine about "pure PvP" in a game world that has always had more (lousy) "AI" on the map at any instant than players. What if the bots were mechanical Turks, instead? Maybe there's a way to make a web interface, and randos could be gunners in their browser for free? If they see chat, etc, they might decide to try the game.

 

Edited by tater

Share this post


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

Not really interested in the Barbie dress up ideas, who cares?

Bottom line is that F2P serves a couple possible functions.

1. It is a chance to try the game, and maybe stay as a sub. The mechanism here is value for money (maybe cheaper subs, if it attracts more people?), and just not sucking. There are many gameplay elements that probably leave an awful taste in people's mouths. My son laughed pretty hard at a few things in the game, but once playing, we've had some fun, but he rages when he shoots someone twice, then they shoot him, then both die.

2. It serves to pad the game with needed bodies. Even with noobs, play is better with more people. The game requires a certain critical mass of players to be interesting on either side. This function is independent of revenue in some ways, it's effectively "AI" that is actually intelligent, and on top of that, free. This can actually feed back to #1 if the gsameplay improves with more F2Ps, then it looks more attractive, etc.

So, the goals need to be to flip some of the #1 people to paid subs, and to leverage the use of F2P players as, well, "AI."

What can be done? 1 has been discussed a lot, and to be honest it's a long pole. The play needs to be substantially more compelling and less frustrating to convert a lot of them I would bet. It needs to pick SOMETHING to be truly excellent at. It ain't terrain/graphics. It is going to have to be gameplay, and IMHO, pegged more to some sense of realism in outcomes (meaning RL expectations about how battles were fought and won should work, not Quake expectations).

#2 I think has some room to improve, and maybe is easier to start with. What about some instant action F2P mechanism that is literally taking the place of AI as a start? A F2P "instant action" button that places the player in the place of a MG, ATG, AAA in an area where the enemy certainly is. "Enemy approaching!" Maybe the AI is messed with to make sure the lines of fire make sense, and maybe less about the dumb tower AI, and more about more realistically placed AI on the ground (so they don't spawn in and get sniped by an ATG from kms away before they can shoot). Join in flight has been asked for, and I have no idea if it is possible, but an "instant action" way to get people aboard for crew/gunners is attractive as well in the "leverage something given away free" sense. Suggest bot gunners on planes (which should always have been a thing, all guns manned, all the time), and people whine about "pure PvP" in a game world that has always had more (lousy) "AI" on the map at any instant than players. What if the bots were mechanical Turks, instead? Maybe there's a way to make a web interface, and randos could be gunners in their browser for free? If they see chat, etc, they might decide to try the game.

 

You might not agree with the concept of purchasable uniforms. That doesn't make it a "Barbie dress up" idea, thank you very much.  YOU might not care about factional uniforms or units. but others do. Some of us have been fighting for years for High Command Uniforms. Others fought for years to have Italian units/ uniforms. People argued against both ideas, but now we have full on Italians, and High Command units, if not distinctive uniforms. Both are good additions to the game.

A LOT of MMOs make a crapton of money from players who want personalization. The idea might not be attractive to you... but "who cares"? Any player who wants a Canadian uniform, or a Polish tankette. Maybe we have a P-51, and maybe we offer a Red-Tail variant. Some pilots might shell out a couple of bucks for that variant. I know that if Navy uniforms were an option, my credit card would be out in half a second.

If monetization is a goal... then utilizing ideas used by successful MMOs isn't the worst thing that we could do.

S!S!S!S!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
42 minutes ago, Quincannon said:

You might not agree with the concept of purchasable uniforms. That doesn't make it a "Barbie dress up" idea, thank you very much.  YOU might not care about factional uniforms or units. but others do. Some of us have been fighting for years for High Command Uniforms. Others fought for years to have Italian units/ uniforms. People argued against both ideas, but now we have full on Italians, and High Command units, if not distinctive uniforms. Both are good additions to the game.

A LOT of MMOs make a crapton of money from players who want personalization. The idea might not be attractive to you... but "who cares"? Any player who wants a Canadian uniform, or a Polish tankette. Maybe we have a P-51, and maybe we offer a Red-Tail variant. Some pilots might shell out a couple of bucks for that variant. I know that if Navy uniforms were an option, my credit card would be out in half a second.

If monetization is a goal... then utilizing ideas used by successful MMOs isn't the worst thing that we could do.

Monetizing stuff is fine, they need money.

Bang for the buck is the issue, and more on topic, this thread is about F2P. I can't imagine a large group of people trying F2P, then saying, "I hate that the guy I shot 2 times point blank with a rifle turned and killed me, then died, but where's my CC? I totally want a different uniform to lag-die in!"

The way to attract people is fixing glaring problems, and improving gameplay. F2P has the 2 uses I can think of, there might be more, but I'm at a loss what they might be.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sorella
On 10/12/2020 at 8:46 PM, Quincannon said:


Canadian uniforms






 

+10/Cosmetic loadouts for everyone.  Free money.

CANADIAN PROVOST CORPS UNIFORMS WW2 BATTLEDRESS

Canadian Forces in World War II: Chartrand, René, Volstad, Ronald:  9781841763026: Books - Amazon.ca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

+100 / KM Sea blue uniforms.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

Lots of ideas here that could increase revenue.

On uniforms, every element of personalization requires space in the packet definition to communicate its presence to all other players within your interaction radius. The packet definition is subject to size limits and is directly tied to bandwidth costs. Because those considerations limit how much personalization can be offered, I suggest sticking to historical realism. 

Quote

Some of us have been fighting for years for High Command Uniforms.

The game of course started out with officer uniforms. That was a fiasco, for the same reason that navy blue infantrymen would be.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
Quote

Monetization

I have seen it said that if Old CRS could have made gameplay "free" but with an effective monetization system (microtransactions or point packs) from the early days, the game "would" have had the revenue to remain more deeply staffed, and would have been able to develop much more effectively.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quincannon
23 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Lots of ideas here that could increase revenue.

On uniforms, every element of personalization requires space in the packet definition to communicate its presence to all other players within your interaction radius. The packet definition is subject to size limits and is directly tied to bandwidth costs. Because those considerations limit how much personalization can be offered, I suggest sticking to historical realism. 

The game of course started out with officer uniforms. That was a fiasco, for the same reason that navy blue infantrymen would be.

No one suggested non-realism. It would be completely realistic that there could be Polish, Australian and Canadian troops in the British forces on detached duty.  In the same vein, Romanians and Hungarians could be serving in German units as well.

Uniform variants and camouflage would be historical as well.

The Navy uniforms being blue shouldn't be a big deal. Most fights involving Navy infantry would be in the ports. Blending isn't really a big factor for them.

As far as Officer Uniforms, I believe that if a player wants to wear such, it should be a possibility, especially if the player is willing to accept any issues.



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...